2002 08-29 SpecialMeridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting August 29, 2002
The Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 4:00 P.M., on Thursday, August 29, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Keven
Shreeve, and Leslie Mathes.
Others Present: Steve Siddoway, Dave McKinnon, Bill Nichols, and Sharon Smith.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers
X Leslie Mathes X Keven Shreeve
X Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: We'd like to welcome everyone to the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Meeting for August 29th
. We would like to begin with roll call of
attendance of the Commissioners.
(Tape error – inaudible)
Borup: -- Commissioner Shreeve is here excuse me. Maybe we need --
Johnson: My name and address?
Borup: Never mind this is not a Public Hearing. Just a discussion, right. Go ahead
Jim.
Johnson: By way of history, we have been at this as a group and a committee and a
formally appointed board for a little over two years. Twenty-seven months to be exact.
Meeting and examining the law and looking at plans throughout the State of Idaho,
there are approximately 20 Urban Renewal Plans in operation now in our state. We
have tried to glean from those plans the pluses and eliminate the minuses and the
negatives of course of public perception of urban renewal. The document you have
before you today, which we have named the Meridian Revitalization Plan, is our
adopted plan. We have adopted this through the MDC. We are under stringent time
lines to meet statute with respect to getting funding. Steve can go into those in detail if
you wish. I am here to answer any questions you might have. The presentation is
going to be by Steve Siddoway. If there are no questions at this time, I will turn it over
to him.
Borup: Any questions of the Commission to Mr. Johnson?
Johnson: Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 2 of 62
Siddoway: Thanks Jim, Thank you Chairman and members of the Commission. As Jim
suggested this, has been an ongoing effort for sometime and it has reached a point
where we are now ready to take some action and get this ball rolling if you will. The city
Council last year held a Public Hearing and adopted the urban renewal area. Some of
you may be familiar with that. The boundary that was adopted last year by the City
Council looks like this. With Fairview up on the top, the freeway I-84 down on the
south, takes a little jog at Franklin. On the north part, it was Fourth to Fourth. On the
south, it was Meridian to Stratford. It was essentially known as the four F’s. Fairway to
Freeway and Fourth to Fourth Plan. This original boundary as adopted last year had
some issues with the inability for us to make the necessary findings that the Central
Valley Corporate park area met the criteria by State Statute for deteriorated or
deteriorating. Clearly, it is an area that is developing and has all necessary public
infrastructure in, et cetera. We have since done a formal eligibility report, looking at the
different areas for inclusion into this urban renewal area. That Eligibility Report was
acted on by City Council Tuesday this week. That action amended the boundary to look
like this. The same boundary north and south, Fairview to the Freeway. The area down
south has now eliminated the Central Valley Corporate Park area and has taken on the
area on the other side of Meridian Road on the west side where Waltman Lane is
because of its access issues and different things that make it difficult to develop. That
is something that the revitalization organization can look at and try to address. The
area in the north basically changed to reflect the boundaries of the new Old Town
district. The Old Town district as reflected in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. That plan
included the area – the boundary on this plan that was originally kind of arbitrarily cut
through that Old Town area and so that has been corrected here with the new
boundary. For that area, we have been working on a plan. What are we going to do
with it? That plan as Jim suggested was adopted a week ago by the MDC Board. It
was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council this week.
The City Council has set some dates of September 17th
for a workshop on the plan and
October 8th
will be a Public Hearing on the plan. By State Code, the Public Hearings on
this plan happen at the City Council level. What is required here is that we have to
have the Planning and Zoning Commission make a formal finding that the plan
complies with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. We need to look at the plan in light of the
Comprehensive Plan and say does the plan comply with the new Comp Plan of the
City? That plan which you all should have looks like this on the cover. Everyone
should also have a copy of the resolution, which looks like this. Our intent here today is
to have the Planning and Zoning Commission – well I guess it isn’t a resolution is it? It
is a recommendation, a formal recommendation to the City Council making a finding
that the MDC Plan is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Centers: Steve, was this because we were heavily involved in the Comp Plan?
Siddoway: State Code requires us to bring it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Centers: Okay. I saw that in the resolution or recommendation here that the Mayor and
Council wants us to review it and recommend that it conforms to the Comp Plan. How
long has the revitalization plan been available?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 3 of 62
Siddoway: A week.
Centers: Really. It was just completed?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Because this is the first I have seen it. I guess I am going to rely on you and
Jim Johnson – does it comply with the Comp Plan?
Siddoway: I am going to cover that, help you make that finding today.
Centers: – because I haven’t read one iota of it.
Siddoway: I will do my best to help you make that finding today.
Borup: We were counting on that.
Siddoway: First of all let me talk to some of the general goals of what we want to
accomplish. Then I want to take a look at the Comprehensive Plan and specifically
what does it say about Old Town and some of the gateway areas that we are
encompassing. Then take a look at what is the plan doing. When it comes down to it,
we want to revitalize the Old Town district. We don’t want to have all the businesses
simply going out to the edge and have the businesses leave the core and have the core
die. We want the center of our city to remain the center of our city. We want it to be a
vibrant lively place. It is the historic center of our community. We want to celebrate that
and make sure we look at historic preservation issues. We want this place to be vibrant
place full of people. Stores, offices, and residences. We want to encourage additional
public gathering places like Generations Plaza, which has been a great though small
addition to the downtown. It is still just a fantastic place that people recognize and love.
One thing we want to look at through the MDC. Is economic development of the area,
to make sure we are working to do what the we can, speaking with MDC on that, to
attract business to the downtown area, in much the way the CCDC has done for Boise.
It is the same type of relationship that CCDC is to Boise with the MDC and the City of
Meridian. We have the rail corridor that cuts right through the heart of Old Town. We
want to make sure we take advantage of that and look at the future opportunities for the
rail corridor. We want to make sure what is built here is quality design and human
scaled in places that people love to be. We want to make sure the streets are improved
with trees and landscaping. We want to address traffic issues through the downtown.
We want to do what we can to beautify the area. If you look at the – does everyone,
have a copy of the new Comprehensive Plan? Does anyone not? I have a couple
extra copies. Might be in your box.
Shreeve: So this is it, officially adopted and the whole thing? Done deal.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 4 of 62
Siddoway: Done adopted August 6, 2002. Okay, there are several places that deal
with Old Town, gateways near the freeway, entryway corridors. I am going to hit some
of the highlights so we get a flavor of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: What page are you on?
Siddoway: The main section that deals with it is on Page 40 of the Comprehensive
Plan. It says Goal 2. Ensure that downtown is the vital center of the community. This
table right there. To hit some highlights there, it suggests that we want to develop
programs to attract customer-oriented businesses and encourage pedestrian uses
downtown. Number 2 talks about maintaining an identity sreetscaping and
rehabilitation some of the historic buildings. If you go down to Number 6, it talks about
identifying gateways into Old Town and providing some gateway features. Number 8
talks about downtown design guidelines, which is a parallel process that we are doing
at the same time. Coming up with design standards for this district. Jumping down to
Number 12 talks about wanting to develop special plans for the redevelopment and
revitalization of Old Town. I would suggest that this Meridian Revitalization Plan is
exactly that. Number 13 talks about developing public parking areas in Old Town which
is included in that plan as we will see in a minute. The next page, on Page 41, talks
about the objective of preserving and restoring Old Town to enhance its historic quality.
Number 4 under that talks about a downtown master plan which this is the first vital step
of. Number 6 reiterates the need for public parking with landscaping downtown.
Jumping down to Objective B on Page 41 talks about providing landscaping in
pedestrian friendly areas and signage in downtown and gateways. Looking over at
Number 2, it talks about coordinate with appropriate agencies on interstate and
gateway beautification, landscaping, and signage. That would be one thing the MDC
could do and has on their radar screen, is looking at gateway improvements to the Old
Town area and near the freeway. Shifting to Page 58, I just highlighted a couple
sections, one talks about the rail and that we wanted to take advantage of the interest in
reusing the rails for light rail passenger service. That is certainly on the radar screen for
MDC. Development that is done will be done in a transit friendly manner. Shuttle bus
service would be under that supported by the type of development that we envision
downtown. If you turn over to Page 99, it then talks about some of the different land
uses and you are all familiar with this so I don’t need to read the whole thing to you. It
talks about the intent of Old Town, which makes up the bulk of the Urban Renewal area.
It talks about the historic downtown and the true community center. Different uses
would include office, retail, lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail. We have a
little of that now. A couple restaurants, some service retail and office but it has potential
to be so much more that it is. That is going to be the focus of the MDC. As I say, the
boundaries of the urban renewal area now coincide directly with the Old Town district as
approved by this plan. Okay, so what does this plan do to help achieve some of these
goals? That is the next main question. If you can pull out your copy of the plan, if you
flip through it, you will see it is probably not an easy document to read and swallow. It
is very much a legal document in my opinion, and has a lot of legal language in it to
address requirements of State Code for an urban renewal project. That said, I would
point you in the direction of some of the specific language that talks about what the plan
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 5 of 62
does. Section 300 on Page 5, says proposed redevelopment actions, 301 general.
These are very general in nature. It is fair to say that the MDC does have a lot of
specific lots and parcels targeted for action but these are the kinds of things that they
will be involved in. MDC proposes to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and
deterioration in the project area by acquisition of certain real property. Which property?
Not spelled out yet. It talks about different zones when you get into the details more
specifically. That could be for example, if the city needed a new city hall and the MDC
could get involved in property acquisition or there are issues where we have lots of
really small lots that don’t redevelop easily, we can get involved with putting several lots
together so that it is more easily redeveloped. I will skim through some of these.
Demolition of certain buildings or other improvements as necessary to prevent the
spread of blight or deterioration. Management of any property acquired. The MDC
intends to do a parking structure for example. It would be as CCDC manages Boise’s
parking structures, MDC would be the entity managing any of Meridian’s parking
structures. Number 6, installation, construction and reconstruction of public service
utilities is what it boils down to when you go through the whole list. There has been
discussion that there are some needs and some potential inadequacies with some clay
sewers, inadequate fire flows for some large buildings and things that the MDC could
help the city address in order to help facilitate the redevelopment. My page was flipped
around. I will skip to Number 9, rehabilitation of structures and improvements by
present owners. You will see here in a minute that they have planned to do a program
for providing funds to existing business owners to upgrade their facilities. To the extent
allowed by law, lender invests federal funds to facilitate redevelopment and et cetera.
When it gets – the nitty gritty of this, comes later in what is one the appendices,
attachment five to the plan, but it’s a big attachment right at the back. It’s the economic
feasibility study prepared by David Eberly. If you go to the back where the page
numbers restart and go to Page 12, there is a section in here that talks about the capital
and operating budget of the MDC. Here is where we talk about our money and what we
intend to do with it. I don’t know if you want or need get to much into the revenue and
operating capital expense assumptions. Basically, there are three sources of revenue.
Tax increment financing is probably the main one. Second would be revenue generated
from parking revenues. The third would be debt financing such as bond issues and
things like that. If you turn to Page 13, you get into some of the details of what our
vision is to do with some of the money. A Meridian City Hall on Page 13. We intend to
be a player with the new city hall and do everything we can to help keep it downtown.
We feel it would be tragedy if city hall were located elsewhere, other than downtown.
We need to invest in the downtown and show a commitment to it so others will come
and invest here as well. A parking structure is mentioned there. It is assumed that we
will build a 250 stall parking structure. The details of this are obviously to be
determined when we get to the actual design. We took our best guess at this point to
say, here is what we are thinking and here are some numbers associated with them to
show we can do that. It talks about gateway and infrastructure improvements down
toward the bottom of Page 13. That is where we would look at gateways and things
that could be done. It shows a five million dollar bond. If you turn the page over, you
will see the streetscape and façade improvement program on Page 14. It is
contemplated that the MDC will create a grant program to help local landowners
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 6 of 62
upgrade their streetscape and building facades within the blue zone. What is the blue
zone? Well if you turn further back in the text, you will see this urban renewal area is
broken into colored zones. The blue zone is where we are now. It is kind of the heart
of the urban renewal redevelopment that is happening today. We would envision it
starting there and moving out into other areas. We anticipate 200,000 dollars being
available annually for the life of the MDC. It will not be until 2008 that we will be able to
fully fund that program. Tax increment financing is an interesting thing where you have
to establish it and then there is a bit of churning of the wheels that happens for a couple
of years while you wait for that funding to really kick into gear. That is one of the
reasons why it is so important that we not loose the opportunity to gather the tax
increment for this year. It will push everything out further. Those I believe are the
highlights of the plan. Can you think of others Jim?
Johnson: MDC was fortunate in that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan was being
revised at the same time we were being formed and doing our work. Many of the
people involved in putting together the Comprehensive Plan are the same people who
have been working with MDC and are in fact members of our board. I don’t know if you
are familiar with the members of our board, but quickly it is Tammy de Weerd, a City
Council woman – Keith Bird, and myself. Clarence Jones is the President and CEO of
Farmers and Merchants State Bank. Clair Bowman who is the Director of COMPASS.
Linda Rupe, a business owner in Meridian and an architect by the name of Craig
Slocum. That is the formal board appointed by the City Council. Behind that is a group
of people working as a committee, preliminary to the appointment of the board that put
together the ideas and did the research on how to form an Urban Renewal Agency.
How to create ourselves under the Statute. Many of those people, local realtors,
business people, Gary Benoit, who has done some revitalization in Meridian on his own
and other people from the private sector. Those same people have been working with
us. Since we are here to see if our plan fits in dovetails with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan recently revised and adopted on August 6th
, I can tell you that it is
basically a plan put together by the same people for the most part. The Comprehensive
Plan went much beyond our group in order to get this input. You people had input,
there were a lot of Public Hearings, et cetera, but when we put our plan together we
had done so with the Comprehensive Plan in mind. Shari Stiles has been an active
participant in our meetings. Steve is an ex-officio member of our board and your
Finance Director Stacy Kilchenmann is also an ex-officio member of our MDC board.
Everything we have done in putting this together we have had this plan in mind. We
have waited actually, and probably one of the reasons we have been at this for over two
years, is that we were waiting for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan so that we
could put our plan in place with it. That is just a brief history. Any questions?
Centers: Jim, could you define TIF and where that money comes from?
Johnson: I can and I can’t. TIF is tax increment financing. In oversimplified terms, it
works like this. In the designated area, and there again by Statute we are only allowed
to take 10 percent of the total taxing area of the incorporated city and we are
somewhere around 7.9 percent or 8 percent of that value. Lets say there is a billion
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 7 of 62
dollars of value, but there is not. We have 8 percent of that within our area on property
tax revenue, is where that comes from. Those taxes, when the urban renewal area is
formed and approved are frozen for the taxing entities. There are like 38 taxing entities.
By that, frozen – they continue to get their taxes that they are getting now. There are a
couple exceptions like school districts and Bill Nichols can tell you all the details on that
but those taxes are frozen at that level. For example, the Mosquito Abatement District
is getting 50,000 dollars in taxes from that map area. That is all they will get. It will be
frozen at that point. New development that comes in there, those new taxes flow to the
agency, based on the assessed value. There are two things we are working toward.
One of course is new development, new growth in the area so that new taxes flow to
us. Without that, we don’t have any funds to operate with. That is backed up by people
who sell bonds who are in the financing business. They sell bonds against tax
increment, because tax increment comes in long after the action of the agency is taken.
That is why by Statute, the legislature in their wisdom, set a maximum life of an Urban
Renewal Agency at 24 years. That when that period is over with, or it can be
terminated prior to that, but that is maximum time it can go. Then all the taxes go the
taxing entities. The hope is at that point is that there is much more tax money available
because you have stimulated growth in the area, in the property taxes have come in
dramatically more than they would have gotten normally. Our goal is to partner in the
private sector as much as possible and that is all what Urban Renewal Agencies do to
create the growth necessary to have the cash flow to do the things to beautify the city
and revitalize the downtown.
Centers: Boise has seen great results.
Johnson: it took Boise a long time to get where they are. There is a history there that
goes back into the 60’s. There have been other entities that have stubbed their toes
and not done a very good job of prioritizing projects and have been criticized for that.
We are trying to learn for that and hopefully we will do that the majority of the people
and citizenry will accept.
Centers: I think its great. Maybe you could – the one sentence I picked up on says
implementation of this plan requires public co-investment to help stimulate – what are
they talking about there?
Johnson: I think they are referring to, and that is what I just referred to and that is to
partnership in the private sector. There are a lot of things I can give examples of, like
CCDC, for example would go out and buy a piece of property and lets say they paid a
million dollars for it. They may sell that same piece of property to a private developer
with contingencies for lesser amount, say 750,000 dollars, which is a bargain. He has
to develop the property. In order to get the growth stimulated, you have those
incentives in the private sector, which is one of the things they are referring to. That
might be a far out example, but there are other examples of that type of incentive for the
private sector to get involved. Because they aren’t going to get involved unless they
can make money on it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 8 of 62
Centers: Yes, he would have to develop it with your guidance.
Johnson: He would bring a plan – this is what my ultimate development will be in that
area, and you put the numbers to it and the property taxes will flow there from.
Everyone benefits.
Centers: Good.
Johnson: Anything else?
Zaremba: In my scanning of it, not a thorough reading of it, this plan appears to give
MDC a pretty heavy hand in the community. In many cases, it says MDC and solely
MDC will decide this, that, or something else. Mostly involving what properties to buy or
to take with eminent domain or decide how it is going to be developed. I don’t have a
problem with that if it’s going to along the direction Meridian wants to go. My question
is, I didn’t find any kind of oversight or what would I call it – appeal process.
Johnson: Mr. Nichols can speak to that but everything we do is with the sanction of the
city. We cannot operate without the city’s support. The city can at any time get rid of us
and they can become the Urban Renewal Agency themselves if they wish. That is in
the Statute. There are other restrictions as well. There are all kinds of conflicts of
interest things as well. Maybe you can speak to that Bill?
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the primary way that the public is
protected is with the City Council being able to effectively boot the board and become
the board so that if you had an Urban Renewal Agency board which was going off on a
tangent, then you would, the citizens through their elected representatives could correct
that. The other thing you see with most of these Urban Renewal Agencies is that they
have board members who are City Council members so that you have that direct link
between the way the city wants to see things go and with the Urban Renewal Agency.
It – although that concern is there, there is a provision in the set up to be able to fix it if
it starts to go a rye.
Zaremba: I wasn’t looking for anything that extreme, to kill it if you don’t like it. I was
thinking more of if one current property owner either takes exception to how they have
been handled or how much they are getting for their property if you take it with eminent
domain. Is there an individual grievance process that doesn’t say we side with this
homeowner we are throwing out the whole MDC? Is there a lessor remedy that
someone could take?
Nichols: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I think you have to recognize
that a lot of what the Urban Renewal Agency does is essentially going to be
cooperative. I mean, they are not going in and walking up to a property owner and
saying, from this point forward, you shall do X, Y and Z with your property. Really,
those types of things are reduced in scope. Also, the last legislature imposed upon
Urban Renewal Agencies some of the same things that cities have to do. There has to
be a budget process that is open to the public, meetings are open to the public, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 9 of 62
public records law applies. They have to have an audit and so there are all those kinds
of protections as well. As the – there is some issue, and I am trying to just think in
terms of our firms experience with regard to the Nampa Urban Renewal Agency and
you know, people aren’t bashful at showing up at meetings if they have concerns or
going to news media or whatever. If you look at the way those programs work, for
example, in north Nampa they wanted to try to remove blighted properties. The
program they came up with was basically a voluntarily one. Get a hold of us and we will
help fund tearing down your uninhabitable piece of junk and so forth – but what they
found was there were a whole bunch of people who didn’t want to take advantage of it.
They would rather have the eyesore sit there than have someone help them clean it up
for some reason or another. Again, I think if you look at the pattern of the way these
things work, there isn’t really much in the way of imposition. If there are going to be
standards imposed, for example, design standards for the Old Town area that will come
through the city it won’t come through MDC.
Centers: I think the question could be, Bill, they don’t have eminent domain power do
they?
Nichols: Commissioner Centers –
Zaremba: I did see that mentioned.
Nichols: I can’t recall if they do or not. I just don’t remember.
Johnson: The city does. The legislation that he referred to this last year was done in
response to a perception that some Urban Renewal Agencies had maybe overstepped
their bounds in terms of projects, priorities and perhaps with the way they treated the
public at the least the public perception of that. That legislation, basically as Bill
indicated, makes us operate the same way as a city operates, very accountable to the
public in terms of budget process, expenditures, conflict of interest rules, and that sort
of things. It is a very open process and it won’t work unless the public is involved. The
public has to be involved in it to make it work, as well as, the private sector and
developers and such.
Zaremba: That was my only question on substantive issues. I have a couple of nit
picky proofreading things that have substance. Let me have them ask their questions
first.
Borup: Anyone else?
Johnson: I am going to let you talk to Steve about the nit picky stuff.
Zaremba: On the Table of Contents Page –
Siddoway: I saw that – the end? I picked up on that one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 10 of 62
Zaremba: Page 15 item H and item K appear to be the same thing to me.
Siddoway: The first sentence is the same K adds a second sentence.
Zaremba: My choice would be to eliminate H and move them up.
Siddoway: I would agree.
Zaremba: Then my only other question was, as I launched into this, it immediately – as
I think you both said, this is a legal document and carries a lot of weight in what it has to
do and what it has to accomplish and how it has to be phrased. I immediately launched
into the mechanics of what was going to happen, and I was wishing for a mission
statement that would have been the first thing I came to. Maybe that exists in other
documents that create the MDC and I don’t have it, but there were interspaced in it, and
I marked them if you want me to tell you, some things where it said one of our goals is
or one our purposes is. As for my own reading, would have liked to have started with
that. Our Mission Is – as the introduction.
Siddoway: I think that is a great suggestion. Whether it belongs in the plan or just as a
separate mission statement – I don’t know Bill, have you seen other plans adopt a
mission statement as part of the plan or is that a separate effort?
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners – I think the MDC has its mandate if you will,
from the city, which may not take the form of a mission statement but there are also
references in the State Statute as far as what they are supposed to do –
Zaremba: And I found those in there, not to interrupt, but as I was reading, I was
reading the how and the what, and what I really wanted to see first was the why. Why?
Why is this? You’re absolutely right if you glean through here, you can find it in about
four different places, there is a sentence or two that related to it. The first one on Page
2, answers the purpose of law and act that this will be attained through, the major goals
of this plan are – and then there are maybe three or four other pages that add another
thought to that. You know, maybe it is impossible when the Statute says exactly what
order everything has to be presented in but it would make reading this much easier if I
knew why. Mission first. The mission is simple – it’s to remove blight and have a nice
pedestrian friendly – they are listed in here if you read the whole thing.
Siddoway: Right, but actually, the most concise place they are listed is under Pages 2
and 3. The purposes of the law and act that will be attained through the major goals of
this plan are A, B, C, D, E, F, G – that really is, if you will, the mission statement of the
plan. It is saying those are the major goals of the plan, and that is how they will be.
Zaremba: That is one of the sections I marked, but somehow I wanted that emphasized
rather than all the mechanics of it, rather than being thrown in the middle.
Johnson: If I could just make a comment Steve, that is a good suggestion as we
proceed in the process and hold additional Public Hearings. That is probably one of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 11 of 62
things we would expect as well. I think one reason it’s not there is – oversight more
than anything because we all know what we are trying to do.
Zaremba: You have all been working with it.
Johnson: Correct. Every city in the State of Idaho has an Urban Renewal Agency. Its
whether or not they have enacted it. Made it effective. That was done by law in the
70’s. The City of Meridian has chosen to make their Urban Renewal Agency effective
and that is what we are. That is what we are doing. They do that in compliance with
the Statute, as Bill said, which points out the criteria you have to meet in order to be an
Urban Renewal Agency in effect. Which are the blight and deteriorated areas and the
need for revitalization? We could certainly sum that up in a couple short sentences as a
prelude to the document or put in the start of the document so.
Siddoway: Even more than a couple sentences, a thought that came to my mind, and
in reviewing other urban renewal --
***End of Side One***
Siddoway: -- many if not most, have an executive summary. Ryan Armbruster, in
preparing this, said, I have deleted the executive summary because it certainly needed
to be acted on, but that is one thing that can be brought back. The executive summary
of the main points, and I think that would help a lot.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, if I may, make this suggestion. Don’t change the plan. If this
Commission recommends that this plan meets the or is in conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan, we really don’t want to change the document and have to bring it
back. A separate document like the executive summary, which could be approved by
the Council, as accurately reflecting the plan would be a way to address the
Commission’s concerns about having those types of things up front without the
necessity of delaying this by changing it and sending it back.
Siddoway: We could add, come up with a separate executive summary that
summarizes the contents of the plan in a short form and lays out the main goals and
take that with this to City Council.
Nichols: Yes.
Borup: Any questions? Final comments Steve?
Siddoway: I guess the only thing I would point out is that as stated in the second
paragraph, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department has reviewed the plan and
has determined that it is in all respects, in conformity to the Comprehensive Plan
adopted plan adopted on August 6, 2002, and with that said, I would recommend to the
Commission, for their finding as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 12 of 62
Borup: I believe we are open for a motion to that effect. Unless we have further
discussion from the Commission?
Centers: I would make the motion, Mr. Chairman, that we recommend to the City
Council that our findings indicate that the Meridian Revitalization Plan is in conformity to
the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Nichols, do they need to reference this document in the motion, or that
necessary?
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I believe since the form of the
recommendation is in front of the Commission and its also on the overhead, that I would
say, that is what gets signed by the Chairman and Deputy City Clerk and that is
forwarded, that is what reflects –
Siddoway: -- the motion that was just made.
Nichols: Yes.
Siddoway: Thank you very much.
(Recess at 5:05 P.M.)
(Reconvene at 5:25 P.M.)
Borup: Let’s reconvene our Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. I am not sure
how many items we will get through but we will try. I assume David has a nice list for
us. We did have a request from Mr. Cornell Larson, to maybe take a look at either the
Sign Ordinance questions or perhaps other methods of appeal in that zoning. Do you
want to take that first David, that item? Then we will hit the cell tower and home
occupations? Those are the two that we definitely wanted to get through tonight.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission that would be great. Did you
want a presentation from me concerning the sign or would you rather the person who
requested time, Cornell, take that?
Borup: I think just a short summary, and I am not sure what would be easiest.
Zaremba: We would like a review of what happened after it left us, at City Council.
McKinnon: Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I think what we will hear
from Mr. Larson and Mr. Jacobsen, has to deal with the Subway property on the corner
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 13 of 62
of Eagle Road and Magic View. I think you are all familiar with that. The applicant
would have liked to have had a larger sign. They made a request for you as you recall
for a rezone of the property from the L-O zone to the Commercial zone. The reason for
the request was so they could have a larger sign.
Shreeve: And a Variance wouldn’t permit it?
McKinnon: A Variance would be extremely hard, if not impossible to make the findings
for a Variance because there was nothing special or unique about the property. They
requested the rezone. I believe the Commission made a recommendation for approval
of the rezone and the rezone went to the City Council. City Council heard the testimony
and determined that there was not sufficient evidence or cause to change the zoning of
that property in order to allow them to have a larger sign. They didn’t feel the need for a
larger sign was justification for changing the zoning. In addition to that, the rest of the
property was zoned L-O and the intent on the Comprehensive Plan was for that
property to be L-O. On the new Comprehensive Plan, they felt there was not sufficient
justification to change the zoning at this time. That is what they decided. It was in
opposition of your recommendation, and that leaves us at that. My understanding is
that the applicants behind me, Mr. Jacobson (tape cuts out)
Borup: -- and I just looked at the land use map and its designated as commercial. I just
noticed that. Oh, there it is right there, I was looking at the wrong side. That is Magic
View that divides the two there.
Centers: It is public record, what was the vote at City Council? They of course knew
the caveat that we attached to that approval, correct? The limit of 20 feet, the come
back of any use whatsoever for a CUP.
McKinnon: Correct. All that information was included in the recommendation from you
to the Council. Do you have any other questions?
Zaremba: I have my copy of the sign ordinance and could look it up but maybe you
know off top of your head – there is a certain distance from the centerline of the freeway
that a taller sign is allowed. Is it something like 700 yards? Are we sure, they are
beyond that?
McKinnon: Yes, we are sure they are beyond that.
Borup: How did McDonalds get theirs approved?
McKinnon: McDonalds was approved prior to this Sign Ordinance being in place. As
far as the approval process, I believe it went through –
Borup: This Commission recommended denial. City Council decided otherwise on that.
These two signs are how far apart from each other? Not that many yards.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 14 of 62
McKinnon: I would have to take a moment to get my scale out to look at it. It is
adjacent properties and they are not extremely large properties that is correct.
Borup: I think the freeway, is 60 or 70?
McKinnon: The maximum height for center sign in the I-84 –
Borup: No, I mean that McDonalds freeway sign there now.
McKinnon: The current ordinance would not allow it.
Borup: I know I wanted to know how tall it was.
McKinnon: I believe its about 70 feet.
Centers: Let me ask this too Dave. What size sign are they presently allowed, period?
McKinnon: Period, for a center sign, on that lot, which they are only allowed because
they will have two buildings on that lot in the future, is 15 feet for a center sign. If they
were to ask for a sign specifically for the one building, the height limit is eight feet in the
L-O zone.
Centers: Otherwise 15 feet?
McKinnon: 15 feet for a center sign. It would only qualify for a center sign –
Centers: You mean for the multiple businesses?
McKinnon: For the multiple businesses, correct.
Centers: Otherwise?
McKinnon: Eight feet.
Zaremba: But if they put it on the building near the roofline, it could be 20 feet in the
air?
McKinnon: That is correct. If the building is that size but I don’t believe it is that high.
We don’t allow roof signs so it couldn’t exceed a certain –
Zaremba: Couldn’t be on top of it –
McKinnon: Correct. I am interested in hearing what they have to say so I might have
some comments for you, concerning that. I guess this is another note, just for your
consideration, Planning and Zoning, or rather the City Council rather, has heard two
variances on sign applications in the last few months. One was for the KFC sign, which
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 15 of 62
they denied for the height limitation, a height limitation type Variance. The other
Variance denied recently for a sign was for an off-premise sign. The City Council has
been watching the Sign Ordinance.
Centers: You mean Roaring Springs?
McKinnon: Not Roaring Springs, the off-premise sign that they denied the Variance for
was the property behind Hollywood Video (tape cuts out) the applicant come forward.
Borup: Well, this really isn’t an applicant but I think we will just be gathering information
from Mr. Larson. Would you like to come forward?
Larson: My name is Cornell Larson. 210 Murray Street in Garden City. Yes, just to
bring you up to speed on that, the City Council didn’t feel comfortable in the use portion
of the application we had made for rezone. They did have several neighbors in a
petition of approximately 33 or 35 people who were opposed to the rezone, which would
be the neighborhood to the north of the Subway sight on the other side of what is St.
Luke’s side. I think its Meridian Greens, but I am not sure that is the right name.
Zaremba: Greenhill Estates.
Larson: In any event, they didn’t feel comfortable with the use. They had a discussion
on the signage itself and suggested that we come to the meeting today to see if there
were some other options that could be done for variances – or maybe not variances but
other ways the ordinance may be modified in conditions where it didn’t appear the
neighbors were opposed to the sign. In fact, a couple of them said we wouldn’t have
even showed up if you had just been asking for a 20 foot sign in front of the building.
One of the directions from City Council that night was to come to this meeting on the
29th
where they are discussing amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and provide some
input on your level of concern about how things happen for variances and issues that
might be negotiated with the neighbors or might be acceptable to the neighbors but
don’t necessarily fit within the ordinance. It is hard to speak to signage, obviously
signage is important to the Subway project. Had there been a less creative way of
submitting the application to you for a rezone, we have had requests for retail type uses
on that site, and that was part of the request was the retail uses as well as the sign.
The sign was the important aspect to the Subway use, probably more important than
being able to lease to a wheelchair sales place as opposed to a medical doctor. Most
likely you would take the medical doctor every time you could lease to one. We got into
one of the situations where it looked like the sign that we were trying to obtain as well
as some of the additional uses, the uses didn’t fit and the sign did. So if there was an
avenue that one could make application and it didn’t fit under the variance avenue
because it wasn’t necessarily a hardship. It was a – felt like a reasonable request in our
view, based on the input we had, so if there was an avenue one could develop within
the city ordinance structure that allowed for specific modification to an ordinance rather
than a sign ordinance or the parking ordinance as long as you had consent and
approval of either the neighborhoods or the Commission or Council that gave some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 16 of 62
validity to things like this sign that doesn’t appear its going to bother anyone. Maybe it’s
a parking ordinance where you have a stall next to neighbors and they say we are not
opposed to the stall but we don’t want people parking in there from 10:00 at night to
8:00 in the morning. So if there was some avenues through the ordinance that would
allow us to, as architects or applicants, to have another method to ask for something,
that might be reasonable request. That would be a great asset I think, in helping out
business or helping out neighbors or homeowners whatever the case may be.
Borup: I take it City Council had no suggestions on what avenue that would be?
Larson: No, we were at the City Council meeting, and I am not sure which Council
person it was that made the request, but they said to attend this meeting. It was
suggested potentially that Keith Bird attend, he was kind of in support of the sign and
rezone more than the other Council members. We expressed our concerns about
having an avenue to do some of these kinds of things. I am not sure we have a specific
ordinance in mind, but we can probably generate some verbiage or some documents to
present to you. They suggested we start here since this is where modifications of
ordinances start and follow the system through and see if there was an avenue that
might work in the future for signage on that property or other properties.
Borup: On this particular property, I thought the Commission had a pretty good solution.
Wasn’t the use limited to L-O uses, essentially?
Larson: I believe your motion was L-O uses, and any thing else was a conditional use.
What the Council commented was, the neighbors have gone through enough on this
piece of property and they don’t want them to come in every time there is a different use
on this property, for another conditional use. What their comment was is we don’t feel
this is really an appropriate rezone because you are forcing the neighbors to come in
for every use.
Borup: So if the restriction had been L-O only, then maybe that would have answered
that.
Larson: Might well have answered that concern. Then they were in a situation a bit of
rezoning the property specifically for the sign, which was the two options we had, and I
don’t think they felt comfortable in doing that without having a better avenue.
Centers: There wasn’t any other avenue.
Larson: No, that was our creative request. I guess that how it went.
Borup: The other avenue would have been to be more lenient on their interpretation of
a variance. Which to me would have had more control over the thing rather than come
up with a whole new ordinance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 17 of 62
Zaremba: The given to us was that variance was not an appropriate avenue. How far
does it miss the variance ordinance?
Larson: Yes, in fact, that was the comment that came from staff that night. You know, it
is probably going to be hard to justify the variance portion of the ordinance for this
particular use.
Zaremba: Let me ask if I may, what do you gain with the additional height? The sign
wouldn’t be visible from the freeway I am sure. Would it have made it visible from Eagle
Road?
Larson: It does make it more visible from Eagle Road. The building itself was going to
be about 18 feet high, and that is pretty much the height of some of those buildings
around there, so it would give it a little more presence. The visibility from Eagle Road is
really important to that business surviving at that location. It doesn’t have direct
exposure to Eagle Road so the need for a prominent sign but not basically overkill – not
a 70 McDonalds sign – its very important for the survival of that business and there are
locations around the freeway where the signage may be appropriate for business like
that.
Borup: Did they do a balloon test or digital photos with the sign in place or anything like
that?
Larson: We have not done that yet, no. I think David had some –
Borup: That was what I was wondering, do we even know how much difference that is
going to make, if you haven’t done any site testing?
Larson: What we did have, and I think Blaine Jacobson might be able to talk to this a
bit. We did have the Subway people out to have their final inspection of the sight
sometime after we gained the conditional use approval and it was their suggestion that
it needed to have a higher sign based on their experience. So we relied pretty much on
what their experience was in our request. It needs to be a 20 foot high sign or higher.
Well, we were not trying to push the limits of higher because of the issues brought up by
McDonalds and some other applications in that area.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I have a couple questions if
you could indulge me. I have some for Mr. Larson, Mr. Jacobson and for Bill Nichols.
Cornell, when you got your Subway application, you went through the planned
development procedure, is that correct? To have multiple buildings on one lot?
Larson: No, actually we went through the conditional use procedure on the first
application and it was conditioned that the application for the second building be a
planned unit development.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 18 of 62
McKinnon: When you applied for your first conditional use permit, for the site, did you
include the sign on the site plan?
Larson: I believe we showed a sign on the site plan, we did not show the height.
McKinnon: Without the planned – the question for Mr. Nichols, now, in the planned
development ordinance we had adopted about a year ago, in 12-6-2, they added some
language to the subdivision section of the ordinance. It says the Council may approve
planned developments. The deviations from the development standards and or area
requirements of the underlying zone may be approved. Would that carry over to
allowing a larger sign in the underlying zone?
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, it is possible, but it would have to
be spelled out in the PUD application so that it can be reviewed and commented upon
and specified so that they would understand what the rules were with regard to that.
McKinnon: Okay, that is the answer I was looking for. You guys have, you are not quite
there yet to put in the PUD for the second building, is that correct?
Larson: Correct.
McKinnon: If you were able to come in with the planned development and request a
larger sign for the center sign to be included as part of the planned development, then
according to what I understood is what you said, the larger sign could be discussed.
Nichols: It could be discussed if it’s talking about development standards. The one
thing I am not sure about David is that if there is a conflict between the sign ordinance
and the PD ordinance, how we would resolve those conflicts. One of the issues, Mr.
Chair that was underlying this at the end of the discussion at Council when they denied
the application. There is some sense on the part of the Council that the sign ordinance
now that it has been in place for a while, needs to be reviewed to see if there some
adjustments to be made in these things to try to avoid these variance requests and
some of these other things. I guess the question, are the standards too stringent? Or do
they need to be modified in some fashion? That is the reason I think for the reference
of looking at changes in the ordinance because the Council obviously – the Councils
vote to uphold the ordinance in these three instances. This time on the rezone for
Subway and the two previous hearings for variances. They were pretty firm that if you
are going to have an ordinance, you either enforce it or you change it. So, they have
been enforcing it. I think there is a recognition on the part of the council that it needs to
be at least looked at. I know at least one Council member has express that there needs
to be more input from those who build and construct and occupy premises with regard
to the sign ordinance. So I think that is part of the reason for Mr. Larson coming here
tonight –whether there are some changes that can be made. Whether there can be
changes to procedures, I am not sure that that – I know there is an appeal procedure,
there is a variance procedure outline in the sign ordinance. The variance – we are tied
into state statute which says variances are for these types of things, like unusual
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 19 of 62
topography or unusual lot dimensions or some sort of unique situation to this particular
property. That is one of the things when these kinds of things come up, because they
really don’t fit. They are in a different category. I would also tell the Commission that
when the Council approved the McDonald’s sign, there was no one in opposition at the
meeting. Despite all the folks you had at your meeting, none showed up at Council.
Larson: It was just the other way for ours. I think we also at the Council level, it was
brought up that the development agreement also spoke to signage and the
development for that parcel. I think Mr. Jacobson explored with Mr. Nichols the
possibility of modifying the development agreement to potentially allow for a specific
sign at a specific location and size. I don’t believe after they talked that there was really
an avenue because in Mr. Nichols – Bill, correct me here – I think the development
agreement went back and spoke to the ordinance and gave the ordinance the direction
for how signs were approved. Even under the Development Agreement, it didn’t appear
there was a method we could use to modify the height of the sign.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the real issue was the
development agreement really fixes the zoning. The L-O zoning. Since the sign
ordinance ties in the height limitations to the zoning. Changing something in the
development agreement doesn’t change the zoning. So then you have a conflict
between the development agreement and your zoning and it makes it messy. So it looks
like the issue is whether the sign ordinance should be changed in some fashion to
either loosen the requirements if you will or make some special application under
special circumstances. It could be as much as making a special circumstance for a
business within a certain distance of a freeway interchange. Or state highway or
something that really reflects this particular situation and others who may be similarly
situated without scrapping the whole ordinance for –
Borup: Did you say there was an appeal process in the sign ordinance?
Nichols: Well, I think the denial – I can’t remember if this is the denial process David or
just the variance –
Zaremba: The appeal would ultimately end up at the City Council I would think, who
just denied it.
Borup: Yes but the problem at the City Council was the language of the variance, the
conditions to comply with the variance. If there was a separate appeal process in the
sign ordinance, then it could have probably been handled there. I don’t think the sign
ordinance is too strict. I mean you have to have something that will fit most situations,
not write an ordinance to fit the exceptions. This is in my mind, more of an exception.
We are in an office park, essentially. A future office park, if this thing develops out like
the Comprehensive Plan talks about and what the landowners intend it to be. You don’t
have any residential neighbors close around and you don’t have a lot of things you can
have at other L-O zones. We have a lot of L-O zones that are right next to residential,
and here we don’t have that situation. I don’t see a lot of objections from the neighbors
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 20 of 62
other than, I guess the neighbors came – well they didn’t have an objection to the sign,
they aren’t going to see it from their place.
Zaremba: They were objecting to changing the zoning after they had put so much time
in, I remember that discussion. I was siding with them, and only because the motion
was phrased so narrowly did I vote for it.
Borup: And maybe something can be added, but I don’t know if I would be in favor of
making a blanket thing, changing the whole sign ordinance that could affect everything
all over town.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think the sign ordinance is adequate. Any changes you make
for just one project I think are ill advised. Because, Mr. Nichols, hit on it – in a sense,
every situation is different and how can you cover them all? You can’t, period. What I
would like to see at the bottom of the sign ordinance would be a phrase, exceptions to
the above ordinances, would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Then go to a
Public Hearing to the P & Z or to the Council. Because, and I made the speech at the
last meeting, every – we make exceptions all the time. We made an exception at our
last P & Z Meeting, to our impact area. We gave some land to Boise. We made an
exception. Correct? We make them all the time and I think it should be handled on a
case-by-case basis. If we could have some language in the ordinance at the bottom,
exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Please submit your written
request to the Planning and Zoning staff and handle it like a CUP. Have a Public
Hearing.
Borup: I think a lot of these – we have to be fairly firm. We don’t want to open it up to
every application, apply for exception.
Centers: That is the problem. I guess staff – that is where they would come into play.
Zaremba: There is an organized system for exceptions, and that is called the Variance
process.
Centers: Not the way the state statute is written. Mr. Nichols just gave that definition.
Borup: I think there are five – is it four? Four conditions that need to be met.
Zaremba: All having to do with the shape of the property essentially.
Centers: Nothing to do with signs.
Larson: Mr. Chairman, on e thing that you might consider when discussing this, is this
particular piece of property, the property to the south of this is pretty much all-
commercial. There are certain areas in town where there will be a lot of commercial but
there are very few interchanges in Meridian. There may be some new ones as time
goes on, and those areas tend to need some exposure for the traveler and need to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 21 of 62
have some benefits for the people who are actually using the freeway. Either passing
through the state or throughout their own transportation. That was one of the reasons
we looked at this site, because it does keep the traveler from going into town and
further up Eagle Road. It also serves the commercial in that area. The businesses still
need to be identified and visible somehow, so if in modifying the ordinance or talking
about that ordinance, if there are specific areas that you might see, that might be helpful
for allowing for exceptions.
Centers: Well and that is what staff would look at if they had a special exception
request in writing. Is this, does this request have merit or is it ridiculous.
Borup: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, and Commissioner Centers, I think what everyone looks for is
to know what the rules are, both from staff and applicant standpoint. So anytime you
have a blanket – if you don’t like it, apply for an exception type thing, then everyone
who doesn’t like the answer they get from staff creates a Public Hearing and adds to the
workload of not only staff, applicant’s representatives, the Commission and the Council.
You put it in a posture where all of those tings go to the Council, they then decide
things, and you have to be careful about not being arbitrary and capricious about how
they handle these exceptions. But you could also have a situation where the Council
has a rule of thumb they look at and say okay, in these types of situations, this is how
we handle it. What we are, what I am suggesting is that it may be the sign ordinance
that needs to be looked at in order to embody those rules of thumb type things so
everyone knows what the rules are. If its – and that is why I throw things out, like if its
within a certain distance of an interchange or a state highway. Then maybe the sign
standards in those cases are the ones you need a little higher sign or more visibility
because of the busy roads and people don’t have a lot of time to gawk to look for
something. So that in that fashion, in looking at where to site something, someone like
Mr. Larson could say, okay, this property is within so many feet of “x” state highway or
interchange – what are the sign requirements? How does that fit with what my clients
want to do? Then also, he can go back to the client and say here is what the rules are
for this property, do you really want to buy it? And he is also able to say to his client,
these are the standards instead of, well we can apply for an exception but I don’t have a
wild guess as to what will happen with it and oh by the way the fees are “x” to do that. I
think everyone wants to strive for something that is workable, definable and gets it out
of having to (inaudible) so many of them.
Larson: Mr. Chairman, in other cities, too, we have seen signage overlay districts along
freeways or in certain areas which does – I am not sure I know exactly how to explain it,
but it does allow you to do certain different things if you are in those overlay districts
that you might normally do through out the rest of the city. So we have seen those in
other communities where they have a sign overlay district along the freeway or adjacent
to the freeway that allows you additional signage and or height for signage. Boise does
have one that is similar, where they discuss signage along the freeway in their
ordinance. They do allow different signage in those conditions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 22 of 62
Shreeve: That is an excellent idea. Has that been considered?
McKinnon: We actually do have an I-84 overlay zone. I think that the chairman –
Zaremba: My question would be, can we make it wider?
McKinnon: Right now we are set at 300 feet from the parallel of the right of way on I-84
on both the north and south sides. If you wanted go bigger than that that would be
something, you could make a decision to do and make a recommendation to Council.
A couple things I would want to temper that with is something that Chairman Borup hit
on earlier, is that there is a minimum distance between freestanding signs in the overlay
zone, which is 500 feet. So if you have a piece of property such as the Texaco or the
McDonalds that has one within 500 feet, under the existing ordinance, they would not
be allowed to have another one unless it was 300 feet linearly away from that. So that
may be another concern that you have to run into. In addition to that –
Borup: That would be another similar type sign. Like a freeway sign.
McKinnon: Correct. Another I-84 sign, which would affect the property we are talking
about right now. The other thing I would temper that with is that there needs to be a
distance setback from any residential zones. There are some properties that are
residential that fall within that I-84 overlay zone. There is in the sign ordinance for all
signs in the industrial and commercially zoned properties to be at least 150 feet away
from any residential properties. If we allow the zone to get bigger and bigger, we have
to also consider providing additional protection for those people in those areas. If there
were changes you would like to make to make it larger, please keep in mind those
comments.
Centers: But tying in with Mr. Nichols comments, with the overlay zone, you could
include – you mentioned the interstate, correct?
McKinnon: Correct, I-84.
Centers: You could include state highways. You could also word it also maybe arterials
with traffic count in excess of, per day.
McKinnon: Correct.
Borup: Wouldn’t that be the easiest amendment to make? The easiest change?
McKinnon: There are a couple issues you have to balance against each other. On the
state highways, do you want to see larger signs on Eagle Road, which is essentially the
gateway into the city. On the major arterials such as Ten Mile, Fairview, Linder, Locust
Grove, do we want to see a lot of signs? Do we want to be the Fairview of Boise?
When you drive downtown Boise and there are a lot of signs, is that what we would like
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 23 of 62
to see? Or would we like to see them limited so they are more attractive rather than
larger? On I-84, you are going to see larger signs because people are traveling at a
higher rate of travel. They have to be able to see it at a further distance away. When
you are traveling on Fairview, very seldom do you exceed 35 miles per hour.
Centers: You refer to Ten Mile. Those are arterials. The zoning is not – the
Comprehensive Plan wouldn’t be applicable there for signage. I mean –
McKinnon: I was just picking out some arterials.
Centers: You want to attract business and signs sell.
McKinnon: Signs do sell.
Centers: And if you want to attract business to the City of Meridian, then your sign
ordinance has to help. You make the comment, do you want to see a lot of signs
everywhere. Well, not necessarily, but –
Borup: Do we want to see a lot of business everywhere?
Centers: Yes. I would prefer the businesses with the signs that vacant land. That is my
opinion.
McKinnon: It is a balancing act.
Borup: On the slower speed roads, I think a monument sign can do just as well.
Zaremba: The difficulty is, he is not actually on Eagle, and he is on a slower speed
road. Anything we draft to help him is going to help thousands –
Borup: Yes, he gets his business from Eagle Road.
McKinnon: if we had an overlay, Commissioner Zaremba, the overlay could encompass
so many feet back from Eagle Road. So if we said 500 feet from the centerline of Eagle
Road, then everyone within 500 of Eagle Road that owns property could put their sign
to that specific size dimension similar to the I-84 overlay zone.
Borup: So maybe restricting that to a state highway would make more sense than start
getting into arterials and traffic counts and such.
Zaremba: Let me ask a different direction question. Your piece of property is part of a
larger development. Are you part of the development that also touches Eagle Road?
Larson: No we are not. That is a separate development. One of the things –
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 24 of 62
Zaremba: Where I was going with that is could you put your sign on Eagle Road and
say (inaudible).
Larson: Not without permission from one of the adjacent property owners.
Borup: Then it is an off premise sign.
Zaremba: I was going to say, well if it’s all the same development, maybe there was an
angle there.
Larson: One of the things too, when David was reading the ordinance. He said its 300
feet from the parallel line of the freeway. When you get into interchanges, that parallel
line is almost taken up by the interchange on and off ramps. So it almost virtually
becomes impossible to fall within that ordinance on an interchange location. Now
unless I misunderstood what he had read and what I thought I had read when I looked
at it, there was no way to get there. If we were 300 feet from the interchange, from the
off ramp, we might be getting closer.
Zaremba: Might you be 300 feet from the ramp?
Larson: I don’t know, I would have to do a little research on that but I think it’s probably
further than that. In reality, a lot of your signage would occur around the interchange.
So if you are limited to 300 feet, you are barely to the off ramp. Which is, maybe the
intent of the ordinance but to do that seems to be not a good planning approach if you
are looking at a sign overlay district. Also Mr. Jacobson did come up and tell me that
Subway did an overlay on their sign and had determined that 20 feet would work with
some photographs from the area, and I wasn’t aware of that. So they did do some work
on that.
Zaremba: I will have to say that I am definitely in favor of capturing business off the
freeway, not only for your business but in general for the City of Meridian.
Borup: I don’t think this is going to get much – this sign is not going to have freeway
visibility. It is intended for Eagle Road is my understanding.
Larson: Yes, its pretty much intended for Eagle Road. You are going to see it on the
off ramp if you are going westbound coming off that off ramp, it will be fairly visible. It’s
probably the only place it would be visible. If you are going eastbound and hit the off
ramp, your chances of seeing it are slim to none.
Borup: Oh they are hoping people will see the McDonald’s sign and get off and say oh
there is a Subway.
Zaremba: I would rather go to Subway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 25 of 62
Larson: We asked if we could put Subway below it, but no one was too excited about
that.
Mathes: How far off Eagle Road are you?
Larson: My guess is probably 500 to 600 feet. I would have to really – I haven’t really
tossed a scale on it. It might not be quite that far, might be 300 or 400. It is probably
300 to 400 feet.
Borup: That is what I was going to say, one lot.
Larson: Yes, it is about the depth of McDonalds or the Texaco, so it is probably right at
300. Where we had the sign positioned is probably closer to 350 to 400 feet.
Centers: If you are measuring from the centerline of Eagle –
Larson: Then we would have to add another 40 or 50 feet, well 50, because that is
probably a 100-foot right-of-way. It may be wider in there, I am not sure what the state
– they kind of flare those right-of-ways when they get towards the interchanges.
Borup: So is there any recommendation we can make tonight?
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I would be a little reluctant to
have you make a recommendation when it wasn’t specifically on your agenda and staff
wasn’t prepared to make comments to you.
Borup: And when I said that I meant, a recommendation for maybe staff to write up
some verbiage. I should have explained that a little more.
Centers: I guess a consensus, my view, and I think each Commissioner should speak
for themselves, is that each business that is attracted to the City of Meridian should not
be prohibited from having a sign within reason. However the staff feels the ordinance
should be changed. I think the City Council feels maybe that the ordinance is too strict
or should be changed to allow for something like this. I guess that is what we are
directing the staff, or hoping the staff with accomplish.
Borup: So adding the state highway verbiage to the overlay zone would be the easiest
way to accomplish that? It hasn’t been a problem. I am wondering if the 300 feet from
the freeway is really practical if we are talking the centerline of the freeway. What is
freeway right-of-way?
McKinnon: Its not from centerline Mr. Chairman. I threw out the centerline because –
Borup: I was thinking it wasn’t. From the freeway right-of-way?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 26 of 62
McKinnon: Well, actually the way its written is from the parallel of the right-of-way of I-
84 on both the north and south sides.
Shreeve: Would you want to write it similar for state? We sure could. I almost think
that it would clear, because sometimes you aren’t sure where the centerline is but you
can guess where the right-of-way is.
Borup: Which wouldn’t help in this situation.
Zaremba: Well, what if we wanted to say something like, leave that part of the
ordinance the way it is with the exception of, at an interchange it is an 800-foot circle
radius circle with the center point being the center of the interchange.
Borup: The two differences we have here, the 300 feet is for a 60-foot freeway sign. I
don’t think we want to have 60-foot signs from the state highway, do we? We are
talking two different sign heights here.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I think what you are really asking
perhaps staff to do is to see if they can come up with an alternative that they can bring
back to you. The Commission that resolves these sort of conflicts in a way that
everyone knows what the rules are going to be without getting too complicated --
***End of Side Two***
Nichols: -- staff can come up with, that they can sit down and put their heads together
that doesn’t vitiate the sign ordinance or doesn’t create a plethora of signs down
Fairview, some of those things but still allows clients of people like Mr. Larson –
Borup: I think I like that. Have it specified out, an extra five feet and not make it – rather
than have it open ended and then we have to have all kinds of discussion about the
height. The height is already determined. The maximum height.
Larson: Mr. Chairman, we have also seen in other jurisdictions where the sign height
steps down where it goes away from the freeway. In other words it is a progressive
movement in the height of the sign. If you are in the 60-foot sign limitation, at 300 feet,
you might be in the 30 feet sign limitation at 300 to 600 feet or some variation there of
that still allows you to gain some advantage and paying the higher price for the land and
all the other issues with an interchange. It gives you a progressive height and then as
your 1000 feet or whatever is determined the distance that is acceptable, it goes back
to the standard ordinance sign criteria.
Borup: You were going to say something David?
McKinnon: Yes Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, while Mr. Nichols was
talking about an additional five feet, I was scribbling to myself that possibly we could a
percentage of the underlying zone, which might be the easiest way of doing that. I don’t
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 27 of 62
know if we need to have 35-foot tall center sign in the C-G zone on Fairview jump all
the way up to 40 feet, but possibly a percentage that goes through with the office. You
know, it could be an additional 20 percent if you fall within the overlay zone. You could
accord that with height and the size.
Borup: So in this case, from 15 to 20, you are talking 35 percent increase.
McKinnon: And right, that might not be appropriate. You may say 20 percent. You could
set that at 30 or 35 percent, 40 percent. You could put that limit just on the specific
underlying zones that fall within the overlay area.
Borup: I was thinking of a percentage, but this short already the percent probably
doesn’t do as much good as if it’s a taller sign to start with.
Centers: What I was going to go back to is the exception would be considered, if in this
additional overlay zone. The expanded overlay zone.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I would have to agree with Mr.
Nichols on that. Set a certain limit on that though, rather than just say an exception is
allowed. Put a limit on that exception.
Centers: No, would be considered if it falls within this expanded overlay zone.
Borup: Additional five-foot exception would be considered.
Centers: Because – you do percentages, and its just a case by case. I can entirely see
what Mr. Nichols is talking about you can’t consider them all. That was part of the
dilemma. Then you could consider the ones that fall within this expanded overlay zone
on a case-by-case basis. Then you are not taking them all that come in the door. If they
fall within that expanded overlay zone, you would consider an exception to the sign
ordinance. Would that work?
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, it might be if you limit it a certain
increased height. Exceptions to this, an additional five feet might be allowed under
certain criteria. Still they know what the top end might be, staff knows how far it might
be able to go, the applicant knows, the neighborhood knows. You don’t get someone
saying, I am in this zone, I can ask for an exception, I want a McDonalds sign too. Its –
I think staff can come up with something that will help. The reason for suggesting a
change in the ordinance is that it may well address some of the issues that have come
up at Council. For this particular applicant, do it in such a way that is not a massive
overhaul of the sign ordinance and we are not into these, it’s a variance but it really isn’t
a variance because of those criteria and not – I give credit to Mr. Larson for coming up
with the rezone idea for trying to get the sign. That was pretty creative.
Zaremba: I would like to propose that the last suggestion that Mr. Larson just made
serves the purposes of the city, in the thought that capturing business off the freeway is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 28 of 62
a good idea and people passing by, to not just have one overlay zone but have a tiered
overlay zone, the first 300 feet, you get a 60 foot sign. The next 200 feet, you can have
a 40 sign. The next 200 feet a 20 foot sign and after that, you are back to the ordinance.
I would limit that to the freeway right-of-way and not include Eagle, Fairview, and the
other streets. I can see having a lot more signage visible form the freeway because we
capture passersby for the City of Meridian that we would not otherwise capture.
Borup: But isn’t that height thing backwards? The further away the taller the sign
should be.
Larson: The neighbors don’t like it.
Borup: But to be practical you can’t keep getting taller but I wonder how many –
Centers: But I think the bottom line is the staff gets our –
Zaremba: A couple more ideas. Or like I say, a bigger circle around the interchange.
Borup: But that is separate from our – we are talking two different things here now,
right?
Zaremba: I am trying to solve the problem of capturing more business near the
freeway. I am not so concerned about having bigger signs along Eagle Road. I don’t
really want to offer bigger signs along Eagle or Fairview or the others. I have no
problem with having big signs several distances from the freeway. I think that is a good
idea and in the city’s best interests to do so.
Borup: So increasing the interchange for the –
Zaremba: Either a bigger circle around the interchange or a tiered system that runs
parallel to the freeway.
Borup: That would save the problem of having this all the way down Eagle Road and
our other State highways.
Zaremba: The two different choices to consider would be running parallel to the whole
length of the freeway, two or three tiers that step back, or leaving it the way it is along
the length of the freeway and only at the interchanges picking a bigger circle like a 1000
feet.
Borup: I would be more in favor of increasing the interchanges. Personally. I don’t
know how everyone else feels and leave everything the way it is. I would hate to see
Fairview be much different that the direct we are already going.
Zaremba: I agree. I would like to keep it freeway focused. I think there is a benefit to
the city near the freeway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 29 of 62
Shreeve: Would a 1000 feet – really that is not all that big.
McKinnon: It is a quarter mile.
Zaremba: The only issue then, do the Kentucky Fried Chicken Bucket people come
back and sue us for not changing it sooner? They would have had the option to ask for
a change.
Mathes: They could have come forward as well.
McKinnon: If you were to come back 1400 feet, you would be at a quarter mile or a
1000.
Zaremba: A circle centered on the interchange.
Mathes: But can KFC come back and try to get a new sign?
Zaremba: Just don’t want them to sue us for not changing the ordinance earlier.
Borup: They can’t do that.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I think David and the other staff
members can come up with some alternatives to try to set this. They can look at
distances and even with a greater distance, it still may be a tiered situation in that
radius to avoid having a 60 foot bucket so many feet from the interchange and that kind
of thing.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I have a couple options that
you guys have laid out. I have three now. I think I can work with that. I would be happy
to work with Mr. Larson and Mr. Jacobson on that if they have some comments. I would
like some time to look at some comps, maybe what some other cities are doing. Not just
Boise City or Eagle or Caldwell but look around at some other cities in other areas and
see how they are handling it. I have a couple ideas of how to word this and where it
needs to go in the ordinance. I am pretty comfortable with it. If you would like me to
come up with a couple different options, I would be happy to do that as well.
Borup: It sounds like right now our intention is probably around the freeway
interchanges, to increase that zone. Is that --
McKinnon: Is that everybody’s take? I will focus on that and come up with some
language on that. Of course, run it past our attorney Mr. Nichols once we have that and
have some comments there. Possible run it past some sign companies so we have
some sign input on this as well. I would be happy to come up with that and come back
to you in the near future as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 30 of 62
Shreeve: What is your time frame? You can proceed you can just can’t put your sign
in?
Larson: We can proceed with the building but we can’t put the sign in. Obviously, the
sooner the better for us. The longer we are hidden back there and don’t have the
exposure or desired exposure, it makes it tougher to keep the business open and going.
We also have a certain amount of time that we have to complete the documents, obtain
a permit and build the building. So we do have a certain time frame to work in to
complete those kinds of things too.
Centers: But in defense to the city Mr. Larson, you came back after the fact and I asked
that question at the P & Z hearing on this request, maybe you should have had Subway
out here before talking to you about the sign item so give Dave some time.
Larson: I wasn’t beating him up for time, I was merely answering. We’ll call and see
what we can get out of him. I would like to thank you for taking time to listen to us. We
appreciate that very much. We appreciate your concerns. We are obviously concerned
too about making businesses work in Meridian. We appreciate the time you have taken.
Borup: Okay, David. Did you want to take a look at the cell tower ordinance first? That
is the one that is probably the most.
McKinnon: Yes, if we could start with the cell tower ordinance first, that would be the
best place to start.
Zaremba: I had a couple versions of it. Is there way to tell that I am looking at the latest
one? Personal Wireless facilities, poles, antennas, towers, and other such -- that is the
latest?
McKinnon: That is the latest and greatest. This has been something that has been in
front of you a couple times. As I am looking at this I can see that I have a couple
different fonts as it falls through here, so if you can hold the clerical comments –
Shreeve: Looks good though.
McKinnon: Yes, hold the clerical comments on that that is easily correctable. A lot of
times I use separate fonts so I can use something to explain something and show it as
something different, in the change of fonts. To give you some background, I have met
with a number of different wireless companies and I have shown them what I have got.
In fact, I worked with them on a few different changes on this ordinance. I worked with
some members of Council who wanted to see a few things. Everyone is essentially in
agreement with the ordinance. That we need to have one in place and that right now
what we have got is too vague. The people from the wireless communications facilities
such as AT&T, Pacific Telecom, Cricket – the comments they typically made was that
they would like to see less restrictions. The comments I received from Council is that
they would like to see more restrictions. That shouldn’t come as a surprise to any of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 31 of 62
you, but what I think we have a pretty good median. If you are comfortable with what
we have here, I wont spend a whole lot of time. Just to let you know, even the
Statesman is behind this one. They have given some kudos in their editorial. They got
a hold of this and their editorial board saw what we had and said it’s a great idea and
Meridian needs something like this. It’s a good idea to do what we are doing especially
with the stealth tower part of the ordinance. Incorporating that into our ordinance. I
think we have got every one on board. When you are ready to make a
recommendation on this, I would be happy to move it on.
Centers: Dave, on Page 4, they are not numbered, but Page 4. If the property is
located next to a residentially zoned property. Do you mean if the tower is – Number 1
at the bottom, I’m sorry –
McKinnon: Yes, I see exactly where you are at. The setback requirement of the tower
– it’s the tower, the setback requirement of the tower itself not the property. Properties
themselves don’t have setback requirements.
Centers: If the property is located next to a residentially zoned property. Do you mean if
the tower is located next to?
Shreeve: Could you change the wording?
McKinnon: We could change the wording.
Centers: Well if you do change the wording, you are saying that next to residential
zone, 125 percent the height of the tower.
McKinnon: If we have a 100 foot tall tower on a piece of property, no matter where its
located, if they want to place that tower, it would be at least 125 feet back from the
residential.
Centers: Okay, Number 4 next page. Excuse me. If it’s next to a public owned right-of-
way, you require it to be two times the height, which is 200 feet. Why wouldn’t it be
further from residential zones? I couldn’t understand that. Why wouldn’t you require it
to be further away from residential zones than right of ways? Then Number 5 down
below, three times the height if it’s next to a principal arterial but residential zone is the
least. I couldn’t understand it.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, actually there is a lot of discussion
on that, and a lot of discussion that we had when trying to make that determination on
residential and the arterial and the publicly owned right of way, falls under a couple
different things. I will address the residentially zoned property first. Item D-1. The
reason we went with 125 percent the height of the tower, was not necessarily to keep
people away from the towers. In discussion with people who live next to the tower, they
don’t seem to mind them. They realized when the purchased the property that they
bought a piece of property next to a tower. It was more or less trying to give them some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 32 of 62
buffer, and the reason for the buffer at a 125 percent was for a fall zone area. It was
more of a safety consideration. A 100 foot tall tower falls, it falls within a 100 feet, you
have 25 foot buffer in case it –
Centers: I understand that but are you talking about the installation of new towers as
well?
McKinnon: New towers as well.
Centers: So a new tower could go in closer to a residential area that a major arterial or
–
McKinnon: Like, I said, I was going to address all of them. The reason for having them
away from an arterial or gateway or larger street is to lesson the impact visually on the
city. To place them closer toward the center of those mile sections that we have. You
know, meridian is set up in a grid with arterials essentially every mile going north, south,
east and west. To place those towers closer to the center rather than place them closer
to where everyone is at in their cars. It would soften the impact of that.
Borup: How many towers do we have in town now do you have any idea?
McKinnon: I don’t have a comprehensive list of those that we do have.
Borup: I was wondering how many would comply with these fall zone setback
requirements.
McKinnon: The residentially zoned property, I can think of at least two that don’t even
come close. There are homes built within 60 feet of the guide wires – specifically in
Turtle Creek with the 220 feet tower that AT&T owns in the middle of the subdivision.
We would prohibit the guide wire towers like that.
Borup: That tower was originally a radio tower, wasn’t it?
McKinnon: It was originally, and then they have added more PCS and digital
components to that. Originally that is what it was. In addition to that, AT&T has been in
some discussion of reducing the height of the tower. They have thought about doing
that because of the weight of the antennas they want to place on (inaudible) increase
as the technology expands.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Dave, I think Commissioners Centers hit on this – I think it is a
question basically saying that the visual impact (inaudible) I guess I understand
Commissioner Centers saying instead of 125 percent, it ought to be three times away
from the residences. What I am hearing you say that even though that may be a visual
impact to a group of residential people, only being 125 percent, at least, its not a visual
impact on a major corridor to the entire community. Is it reasonable to request three
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 33 of 62
times on a residential property as well, or we starting to get pretty good-sized lots then,
aren’t we?
McKinnon: What we would end up with, if we require it to go three times the height of
the tower back from a principal arterial, that essentially puts you back into a lot of what
would be the residential zones. You don’t see a lot of commercial deep into those
square miles. Then if you were to place the additional requirement of having those be
300 feet from property you would end up essentially with a 100-foot tall tower only being
able to be placed every 300 feet back from property line and 300 feet back from
residential starting. It limits it very much. We are very open to adopting a different
standard other than 125 percent the height of the tower two times the height of the
tower.
Centers: Dave, and I don’t mean to sit up here and play God by any means – have you
researched other cities? I am totally in favor of a cell tower ordinance. Totally. I think we
need it, its necessary. I wondered about that and made my notes. Other cities, if that is
the trend, that is the norm, you know – I just brought it up for discussion. It didn’t make
sense to me.
Shreeve: Again, basically protecting the view of the residents.
Borup: I don’t think the view is that – no I don’t think that is the concern and that is not
something the city should be mandating is the view protection.
Zaremba: Well, the view along the corridors it is. There are two different reasons here.
The one on the corridors the reason is the view. The one around the residences, the
reason is the fall zone. Correct?
McKinnon: That is correct. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, and members of the
Commission, there has been a lot of cooperation from other cities in the area, from
Boise City, Eagle City, Caldwell, the Ada County area, Sun Valley, Ketchum, Coeur de
A’lene, some areas of King County. I have researched in those areas. It’s very similar.
Centers: If you think about it, if its 200 feet away, its still going to be just as ugly as it is
at 125 feet away.
Borup: Sometimes the closer the better.
McKinnon: Sometimes the closer you are, the less you actually notice the monopole.
Borup: Yes, on a tall tower, the closer it is to you, the less you see it.
McKinnon: One thing to keep in mind, the towers we are limiting these people to are
probably not going to exceed the height that would require the FAA lights, which is
essentially the one thing we get the most complaints is I’ve got this red blinking light in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 34 of 62
my bedroom window all night long. This would prohibit the use of that because it would
limit the use of the technology that builds the towers that high.
Mathes: Do you have fencing around this? I didn’t see –
McKinnon: There is a requirement for landscaping around towers. Including fencing.
Mathes: What if they are unable to do the upkeep on that landscaping? We have one
by our office that all the shrubs around it are dead.
McKinnon: In fact, our landscape ordinance does address that. It talks about required
landscaping needs to be maintained. The enforcement side of that – I guess it would
be my department, the Planning and Zoning side, needs to be updated. We need to
increase the amount of enforcement we are doing. Whether its Code Enforcement or
planners going out.
Mathes: How do you keep it up though? Do you fine them? Or what do you do?
McKinnon: You can require them to put it in. If it’s dead, you can require them to
replace it. There are actually civil remedies for that, listed in the landscape ordinance.
Shreeve: Go for it.
Borup: I think the city right now is relying on notification from the citizens. They don’t
have time to run out and look at everything but a phone call would initiate that.
McKinnon: It would. We don’t have a proactive – it’s not so much that we go out and
review them on a monthly basis. If someone gave us a call and we saw there was a
problem, we would let the appropriate people know it needs to be taken care of. Just
so you know, there are remedies in the landscape ordinance, to require the upkeep and
maintenance of that.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, just a quick thing on that. The Council did include in the
budget, some additional funds to hire a code enforcement officer who reports to the
planning and zoning director, so that should help.
McKinnon: Thank you Mr. Nichols.
Centers: There was a signage problem in my subdivision. I reported it and it was taken
care of. It took a while, but there are a lot of things to do.
Borup: I don’t think that is such a bad way to do it. If someone is not complying and no
one cares, then maybe its not that big of a deal. People just have to know they need to
make a phone call.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 35 of 62
Zaremba: This was a subject that I think came up earlier and I don’t see it in this copy
unless I am missing it. At the very end, there is a section F that says attachments to the
tower. No tower shall have constructed thereon or attached thereto in any way, platform
catwalks, crow’s-nest or like structures – which reminds me that I thought we also had a
statement somewhere that said there could not be any signs or banners or anything
hanging off of them and I am not finding that.
Borup: That would be under the sign ordinance, if there is a sign, wouldn’t it?
McKinnon: yes, if there was a sign hanging from it, it would fall under the sign
ordinance, but that is not a bad thought. I do remember talking about painting the signs
and how they needed to be maintained and whether or not – I do remember having
some discussion on that. I think Chairman Borup is right it would fall under the
guidelines of the sign ordinance.
Borup: And it might not hurt to have it in there.
McKinnon: Yes, it might not hurt to have something there.
Zaremba: Yes, that is the spot that reminded me of it.
Borup: Just add signs or banners under crow’s-nests.
McKinnon: You guys want me to make that change before it goes to Council?
Zaremba: if you put it after crows nest, then they might think they could have the
banner or sign when it is under (inaudible) add another sentence after repair, period.
Just say no signs or banners may be attached to the tower at any time. Be clearer.
Just a new sentence. Under F still.
McKinnon: Okay, I will make that change.
(Inaudible – tape cuts out)
Borup: I have a question on something Dave brought up.
Zaremba: I guess this is a formal meeting where we can make motions?
Borup: I think that would be appropriate.
Zaremba: I move that the ordinance with the short title wireless communications tower
ordinance be forwarded to the city Council for approval.
(Inaudible – tape cuts out)
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 36 of 62
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Dave, we did mention the tower in Turtle Creek. I had heard from an individual
that they had, and I think I understand why – that they had proposed to take that 700-
foot tower and reduce it to 150 feet and the city turned them down.
McKinnon: That is correct.
Borup: Well, they also want to relocate it. Is that correct? They wanted to move it to
the end of the property or something. The 150 feet would not comply, I assume, is the
reason they were turned down?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission that happened before I started
work for the City of Meridian.
Borup: Oh, was it that long ago? I didn’t have real specifics, I was just told a couple
months ago.
McKinnon: I have heard the same story, it is correct. At this point, it would be
irresponsible on my behalf to tell you what happened because I wasn’t present.
Borup: And I am sure there was more to it than what I was told.
McKinnon: I would hate to add what I have heard because what I have heard may not
be correct as well.
Borup: but is there any –
McKinnon: There is some truth to that – they did come in.
Borup: Even if the 150 feet does comply, boy, I don’t know. Looks like that might be a
situation worthy of exception. To be able to reduce the 700 foot tower down to 150.
That is an eyesore.
McKinnon: Let me back up here – make one comment. I believe it came down to
whether or not the use in that location was appropriate. Whether it would be
nonconforming use and allow the change –
Borup: I don’t think it is, its there now because it has been grandfathered.
McKinnon: Right and grandfathered is another way of saying legal non-conforming. In
the way our ordinance is written, to have legal non-conforming uses go away, rather
than perpetuate.
Borup: So they were not looking at having a time frame on even a shorter tower.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 37 of 62
Zaremba: But then its not grandfathered.
McKinnon: Well, if you take it down, it’s not necessarily grandfathered anymore. The
only way to have a legal nonconforming use expanded or extended to another business
is through a conditional use permit per our ordinance.
Borup: So it will probably be there for another ten or thirty years.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as technology changes, I have
met with the people who control the tower, and it is starting to get to the point where it is
no longer able to support the technology they would like to place on it.
Borup: So they may want to move it anyway.
McKinnon: Eventually there will be a demand on the services on that tower that
something will have to change. It could be 20 years down the road. The technology is
rapidly changing even in the field of cellular technology.
Borup: I think they have a lease that is also renewable.
McKinnon: Yes, they typically have very long leases with an extension of a very long
period of time as well.
Borup: I was just curious at how much accuracy there was to that statement. Okay,
which item did you want to hit next?
McKinnon: If we could go the posting requirements for the City of Meridian, and
changes to that.
Zaremba: I have that one on top.
McKinnon: Did you just have the single page copy? There was some additional
language that went along with this and it seems that you didn’t get this that shows
where it needed to be. This is actually just a – maybe Sharon can get this for us – the
image in front of you is essentially a summary that explains the changes and gives
some guidelines that show how the changes the applicants for these types of
developments. I put this together so they would understand exactly what the changes
of Meridian City Code 11-15-5 were. There was some additional paperwork that went
with this that you don’t have right now. Maybe Sharon could grab that for you. Might be
hard to make a – maybe in an earlier email. Essentially what we did, I will just explain it
to you and we may not be able to spend much time on it tonight. What this did was
change the way Meridian City Code 11-15-5 reads right now. For the most part, it was to
change the ordinance to require a larger notice and allow – we discussed this in the
past. There was a discussion to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to require
a neighborhood meeting if they felt one was necessary during the Public Hearing—you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 38 of 62
know, to continue it and require a neighborhood meeting take place and to clarify some
issues in City Code 11-15 that states the applicant is responsible for providing radius
notice list, this list within 300 feet of the property. That hasn’t been happening for a
number of years. We have been providing that list so we can double check the list. So
instead of having an ordinance that sits in our books that doesn’t mean anything, we
thought we would modify that. Those were the changes in addition to the changes you
see here, the requirements added to this. That is what we have in front of you tonight
and its unfortunate you don’t have that – you have seen it a number of times and it just
included those changes. We’ll make sure you will get that.
Shreeve: Dave I was reading that. You provide the 300-foot list. Where it was once
their requirement you have modified that to just simply take on that burden.
McKinnon: That is a burden that we have taken on for quite some time. There is no
reason for that to remain on the books. If anyone makes a mistake, it’s us.
Centers: So you are not prepared to move on with this? What were you missing?
Zaremba: Let me make a couple comments on what we have.
McKinnon: It is something you have seen a number of times. So if you want to move it
on, if you are comfortable with in, from what you remember from the time before, to
make the recommendation to make the recommendation to make those changes, as I
have outlined them to you and as you have received them in your previous packets –
Zaremba: Again on sizes since this is what brought me to talking about this in the first
place – let me hit one that may be a typo first. One -- signage requirements, B, centered
at the top of 4 x 4 sign in six inch letters shall be the words public notice – then in your
example its says Public Hearing Notice. I like the Public Hearing Notice better, so I
would change that. Then I am thinking of things people would see from a distance. I
am thrilled with the six-inch size. I would like to suggest that also in six inch letters, the
date and time and location of the hearing – that may end up being two lines instead of
one line but the example – I think that should be in six inch letters. I am thinking of
people who are not going to stop and read the whole sign and will just see it as they are
driving by.
Borup: Well, if they are not very interested, they are not going to stop.
Zaremba: Well, depending on where they are posted, I have seen somewhere I would
not stop. It’s a busy street with moving traffic – unless I as a pedestrian already
walking, I probably wouldn’t pull over to the curb and –
Centers: How about if you were within 300 feet, you wouldn’t turn around and come
back?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 39 of 62
Zaremba: I might but if I could capture from the sign the date and location without
having to slow down –
Shreeve: There again, just for the sake of an argument, what purpose does the date
and time show if you don’t know what the purpose is – if you are going to increase
sizes, I would say increase the purpose. Then as you drive by you say hey, wow, there
is a Public Hearing and it has to do with a subdivision – I better stop and find out what
time this is.
Borup: Dave, how close is this to what Eagle has been doing?
McKinnon: This is almost identical. I almost stole this directly from Eagle.
Borup: I have seen some of those Eagle signs and you cant get much more on there
that what is on there.
McKinnon: That is correct. That is the problem with the six-inch on another location.
As far as, if we were to increase size in anything, my suggestion would be what the
meeting is for – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. At least then, the people
know whom they can contact. They can contact the city to find out what it is.
Centers: Is this for all Public Hearing notices?
Borup: That was my next question.
Centers: Because you can’t ask them to put this sign on a daycare CUP in their front
lawn on two posts.
Borup: Or for a variance.
McKinnon: This is something we discussed at length at another meeting. We decided
(inaudible). I believe – I wish I had that in front of me – do you have that? Can I see
that? This is it. In lieu of the above conditions, conditional use permit applications for
group child care homes, annexation and preliminary plat applications that contain less
than five acres of land and rezone, Comprehensive Plan amendment applications for
parcels less than three acres in size.
Borup: So it would essentially be any project above five acres.
McKinnon: Anything bigger than five acres and any rezone or Comprehensive Plan
amendment in excess of three acres. Everything else could be handled by the use of
the ones –
Shreeve: What page is that?
McKinnon: That is Page 2, Item 3, under signage requirements.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 40 of 62
Mathes: Now on the first page of that, it says the applicant is responsible for getting the
300-foot radius list, and you just said the city is going to be.
McKinnon: Right and this is how it reads right now – that the applicant shall provide the
city clerk with. Now the way I proposed the changes and the way you have proposed
the changes, it that the applicant shall obtain a list of property owners from the City of
Meridian Planning and Zoning department. So they get it from us.
Centers: So along with this – you know my memory is being refreshed here. You are
wanting us to act on the neighborhood meeting requirement?
Shreeve: I don’t think this is the neighborhood meeting thing is it?
McKinnon: That is Item Number 3 that is one of the things we did change on that. That
was the – the way it was worded when Commissioner Mathes received this, was the
applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting that gives the public the opportunity to
review the proposed project. The language that is now in there states that the Planning
and Zoning Commission may require the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting.
Centers: I read that letter from Glendale Arizona – that article.
Zaremba: Thank you for that.
Centers: You are talking about another full time person just to monitor that, like they
have.
McKinnon: Essentially. The reason I –
Centers: Can of worms, in my opinion.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the reason I presented that is
to give you an idea of what some other cities are doing. That is a much more involved
process.
Borup: Some of the applicants have done that in Meridian and it’s been well worthwhile
for them. They have taken care of a lot of opposition and they answered the questions.
Then people don’t show up at this meeting. Other times, Boise requires them on
anything. I personally went through one. We had one person show up. It would have
been just as easy to come to the Council meeting to do that.
Centers: I would like to see staff say that its recommended that you do that – and if you
don’t, be prepared for your application to be postponed.
Borup: And that is usually what happens. You can usually tell if it’s going to be
controversial. I mean the people should know in advance, if their project is, that it
would be to their best interests to have one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 41 of 62
Shreeve: Typically you get people here refuting it and it’s postponed, and there are
even more the next meeting.
Borup: Right. Gives them a chance to gather their forces.
Shreeve: I think, Dave, there has been some signage concerns brought up by the
public. So I think this is good, good thing to have. Probably the only thing, rather than
the applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting, have it say that it is recommended
that the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting.
Borup: And then, you said that the Planning and Zoning Commission may require.
McKinnon: The way the wording is, on the way you reworded it after our last meeting,
we discussed that it is recommended and that the Planning and Zoning may require.
Just the exact same language just below that. Not that they shall, but that they may
require and then set forth all the requirements of the neighborhood meeting. Who needs
to be invited, when it can be held? Not giving them the invitation the day of the
meeting. That doesn’t help.
Borup: As long as staff doesn’t abuse that, I think that shall, the staff may require –
McKinnon: Planning and Zoning Commission may require.
Borup: Oh, Planning and Zoning Commission?
McKinnon: Yes, you as a body may require that at a meeting.
Shreeve: So in other words, when they come in, we get a lot of rebuttal –
Borup: We just say we are going to continue this hearing you guys go back and work it
out rather than wasting our time.
Shreeve: I think that’s excellent.
Centers: Because you were told that it was recommended to have a neighborhood
meeting.
McKinnon: That was one of the changes you recommended.
Borup: Especially if staff came in and said, we really tried to encourage them to do that
and they didn’t want to do it.
Shreeve: Legally can we cut a meeting short like that?
Borup: Sure. Mr. Nichols, is there any reason we couldn’t?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 42 of 62
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, you bet you can. If it looks like,
and we have all seen it. Whether its at this Commission level or the Council level,
someone shows up with a ton of questions. They don’t know whether they oppose it or
are in favor of it, they just have a ton of questions. The reason they have a ton of
questions is that they didn’t take the time to find out or they just found out about it or it
wasn’t one of the JoAnne Butler’s clients and they didn’t have a neighborhood meeting
so you can say, lets continue this hearing. You have your neighborhood meeting
between now and X date. Come back to us with the results of the meeting and we will
proceed with the hearing at a future date. That is my experience, what I have seen is
that those who do the neighborhood meetings are the same ones that do really good
pre-application meetings and they know they may not satisfy everyone but at least they
know what the opposition is. They will say to you in their presentation, we had
neighborhood meetings on this date.
Borup: Some of them have been saying that. They had a thing they sent notices. Four
people showed up, but there are 20 people here. So I don’t know if we should feel so
sorry for those people if they didn’t bother going to the neighborhood meeting so I think
we got the wording in there. I don’t think we need to look at that again.
Centers: Yes, I think we can give it to Dave to give to Council.
Shreeve: I would like to recommend approval if that is appropriate. Lets get that on the
books.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: Dave, a side issue. You have several times sent us helpful articles copied
out of this same magazine. What magazine is that?
McKinnon: The Western Planner.
Borup: Which one do you want to look at next? The Childcare Ordinance?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I think the childcare is the most
appropriate one to deal with at this time. We have six minutes I will go quickly. The
childcare, Accessory Use occupation, is the one you received at your August 15th
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. If you don’t have it, I have an extra copy or
two. Got it? Hopefully you have had a chance to take a look at some of the issues that
surround this. I put those in little italicized numbers – paragraphs at the top. The City of
Meridian, just to give some background, in addition to some other jurisdictions in the
State of Idaho, have adopted a child care guideline that states you can have up to five
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 43 of 62
children in your home to be watched. The state standard is six. So a lot of times, what
people do is, they get a license up to five children, and the state says you don’t need
one from us. Then they go the state and get their license for six children and come to us
and say, I have a license for six children, how come you will only let us have five?
There is no reason for us to battle back and forth with the state. The difference between
five and six is one child. In order to make it more simplified, we thought that that is
something we could add. You will notice in 11-2, the definitions, we have changed the
number from five or fewer to six or fewer. Then for group childcare, we went from
seven. In addition to that we have received a number of phone calls and questions
from people saying I am an aunt or an uncle and I am watching my niece and nephew
for my sister while she works. Do I have to have a daycare license? We felt –
***End of Side Three***
McKinnon: -- that it would probably be appropriate for family to watch those children
without being required to go through the process of a Childcare Permit. We added that
language. In addition to that, we added language such as the educational institutions
that are regulated by the Board of Education. That is something that allows the YMCA
type programs to take place without having to have a childcare facility license. For an
after school YMCA program, that they have such as at the new Ponderosa Elementary
school that will care for children after school at the school itself.
Zaremba: Can I back you up for just a second? I am falling behind. The first bold
underlined statement that you have that you were just talking about that excludes
parents and aunts and uncles.
McKinnon: Homes of parents –
Zaremba: Yes, homes of, rather than or.
McKinnon: Yes, thanks for that correction. In fact Mr. Nichols tonight showed me a
number of clerical errors that will need corrected. When I get done going through this, I
can ask him to point them out to you so you can see the same things that he has shown
me. I didn’t take the time to redline all my own corrections. I asked him if he would be
willing to go through those for you. The number of children that live at these locations,
a lot of the times that is another item that is discussed. Currently we talk about children
under the age of 14 that are being cared for. That looks like something I have over
sighted on the top of the childcare facility. When we deal with children under the age of
14, for the most part, kids under the age of 14, from 12 to 14 are the same age as kids
who baby-sit my kids when my wife and I go out. It seems odd that we are requiring
those people to be counted as kids who are being watched in a daycare facility. We
tried to figure out an age that would be more appropriate to be cared for. If you live at
home and you are under the age of 14, you shouldn’t have to count against the number.
Borup: Their own children.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 44 of 62
McKinnon: Their own children. Currently if you are under the age of 14 and you live at
home, you are counted as one of those children, according to the state. Meridian does
not. According to the state, if you live at home and you are a child that is being
watched, you are counted toward that number being watched. Councilman Nary pointed
out to us that the way our ordinance is currently written, it does not include your own
children. I have had numerous discussions with Richard Swift at the state, who handles
the state licensing for daycares in this area. He says absolutely the state does count
your own children toward that number of children being watched during the day.
Borup: So our ordinance does not include your own children.
McKinnon: It does not.
Borup: Staff reports have included them.
McKinnon: Staff reports have included it because that is the way it has been explained
to us until the City Council meeting where Councilman Nary pointed out to us that that
is not what our ordinance says.
Borup: Interesting what you find out when you read them.
McKinnon: So we decided we better be very careful on that and say which kids do
count towards that. If you are over the age of eight years old – this is just a number we
picked. If you are over the age of eight, you can somewhat take care of yourself in your
home environment, without a whole lot of supervision. We felt that if you are a child that
is over the age of eight, when you are at home you should not count toward your
parents’ daycare number of children. If you are over the age of eight and you are being
– if you are going to someone else’s house for daycare, you should be counted as a
daycare child. In your own home, you should not be counted if you are over the age of
eight. Even though the state will require that to be so.
Centers: I guess it depends on how many children they have between nine and
sixteen. If they have a permit from us to have a daycare for seven –
McKinnon: That is a lot of kids.
Shreeve: So do I need a permit for my kids? I have six of them.
McKinnon: Well –
Zaremba: Not until you have one more.
McKinnon: When you hit that seven threshold, yeah. I will have you beat – I have four
already. Bottom of the page, talks about home occupation. In the sign ordinance, that
is 11-14-10 tables A and B, it allows home occupations in residential zones, to have a
sign that eight square feet in size attached directly to the flat part of the building. That is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 45 of 62
a fairly large sign. We felt that was a little larger than is necessary, so we decided to
limit that to two square feet. A one by two sign saying this is where we do a daycare.
This is where we do a home occupation. Rather than allow a two-foot by four-foot sign
to be placed on the building.
Centers: So you mean, exterior walls.
McKinnon: That is correct.
Centers: Home occupation wall and window sign. The wall to me is an interior –
McKinnon: You could have an exterior wall –
Centers: So you should add exterior there in my opinion.
Borup: Well, you can do anything you want on an interior wall.
McKinnon: The way the sign ordinance is written, its just actually listed as a wall sign. It
doesn’t say exterior wall sign but that would be fine as well.
Borup: Okay but you are restricting window signs too, right? Someone cannot paint on
their window?
McKinnon: That is per the sign ordinance right now. The sign ordinance does limit wall
signage. Window signage as well.
Zaremba: What you are proposing is something that would be roughly this size.
McKinnon: You have to remember these are in residential areas.
Zaremba: That doesn’t make it all that noticeable from the street but as you are
approaching the door, it would reconfirm for you that you are in the right place.
McKinnon: That is correct. Rather than a –
(Inaudible)
Centers: I totally agree. I mean they are not advertising for future business. It’s just that
you are at the right place.
(Inaudible)
McKinnon: Okay, we just thought that would be appropriate to reduce that. If you could
flip over the second page, the zoning schedule of use control. That is the same thing we
have talked about numerous times saying what is required in each specific zone. As
we get down through it, this is what we are talking about is this section of the codebook.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 46 of 62
We go through to see what is allowed? Is it a conditional use or a permitted use? What
is an Accessory Use? We are going to start with a new home occupation ordinance if
we adopt it that would allow –
Borup: Can we back up just a little bit? And maybe we are okay. I agree on the sign
size for childcare and probably most home occupations. I am thinking of some of the
ones we have had before us like the beauty shop, salons. Is that appropriate for a
business like that? So far the ones we have done have not been in – I guess they have
been in residential but not what we would consider a residential subdivision, they have
been in Old Town.
McKinnon: Right and those have not been handled as home occupations, but taking an
existing single-family residential unit and changing it into a full time salon.
Borup: I am thinking of some where they remodeled a back porch or something and
they were still living in the house, they had one little room they were using. I drive by it
once in a while. Its over on Pine Street. I think we have had others.
Zaremba: The one who wants to become a daycare center that needs to park at the
church two houses away is probably – the people live there and conduct their salon in
it.
Borup: Now.
Zaremba: Yes, the current people who want to sell it to the new day care.
Mathes: Do they have a sign out on the street though?
McKinnon: They wouldn’t be allowed – home occupations are not currently allowed to
have a freestanding sign.
Mathes: And is that classified as a home occupation now?
McKinnon: If it meets all the – which one?
Mathes: The salon that is trying to turn into the daycare.
Zaremba: yes, I think the people live there. The salon owner lives in the house.
Mathes: I drove by there today and there is a sign in their yard.
McKinnon: and that would be prohibited by our sign ordinance right now. If there were
one in place prior to the adoption of the sign ordinance, it would be a legal
nonconforming sign. There was no sunset clause attached to the sign ordinance.
Mathes: I think it has been there a while.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 47 of 62
McKinnon: So it would be a legal nonconforming – grandfathered but if they were to
change uses –
Mathes: The daycare would not be okay.
McKinnon: The daycare would not be a stay at home -- they are looking at that as a
commercial venture. Then it would fall under the guidelines under what is allowed in
that zoning designation. We are talking just the home occupations and that would be –
the home occupations will be outlined in the rest of this code. Just roll on to those. The
11-8-1 the schedule of use controls. Under the new guidelines we are proposing, some
home occupations could go to conditional uses. There are some home occupations that
people want to do at their homes, that right now we would prohibit, but possible under a
conditional use permit with a set of conditions of approval, may be acceptable. So we
decided to add possibly requiring a conditional use permit. They will be more spelled
out as we go through this. The different categories – under the new proposal, there will
be three categories of home occupations. Those requiring Accessory Use permit as a
standard. Those requiring conditional use permit and those that are outright prohibited.
We have listed those ones that would be outright prohibited. We listed what those are.
You can go down to the Accessory Use provisions. We have added some language
under A, stating that all Accessory Use permits are subject to all of the provisions of the
city code, the Uniform Building code – Mr. Nichols pointed to me that we will adopting
the international building code very shortly if the state requires that we do so. So that
may need to be changed to International Building Code. Fire Code. That language
doesn’t currently exist in the code and we thought that would be appropriate because
that is what we hold people to right now. We require it but its not listed. We thought we
might as well make it a listed requirement. You can turn to Page 3, the first underlined
sentence. Number four, transferability. I need you to make a correction on this as I was
going through, as Steve was making his presentation, I was going through this to make
sure I had not missed anything and sure enough I did. Accessory Use permits, the way
I have it worded right now, states that they are not transferable to any other person
other than the original applicant or to locations other than that indicated on the original
application. If you could please take a pen and strike through not transferable to any
persons other than the original applicant or -- the Meridian City Code, the new planned
development ordinance actually for transferability of home occupations in childcare. If
they make a petition to the City of Meridian City Council, and have a Public Hearing
held for that. However, nothing is mentioned in that section of code concerning
transferring Accessory Use permits or daycares to other locations. We don’t want to
allow people to say I would like to take my daycare at 315 Pine Street and move it down
to 415 Pine Street. They would have to apply for a new permit for a new location.
Zaremba: Wouldn’t it make more – if I am understanding what you just said – rather
than strike this wording, would it make more sense to add – leave this sentence as it is
and add a new sentence that says you can appeal this to the City Council or something
like that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 48 of 62
McKinnon: The language of the ordinance is very specific in Meridian City Code 11-17-
10-B. I wrote it down so I could remember where it’s at. It’s very specific. It says
daycares and home occupations may be transferred from person to person or a new
owner of the property as long as they make a petition to the City Council.
Zaremba: That condition is pretty specific. If you don’t make that application to the City
Council, you cannot make the transfer.
McKinnon: That is correct.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman. David, I am a little confused. What you are saying is that you
recommend that the Accessory Use permits be transferable by application to other
persons but that they are not transferable without a separate application to another use
or location.
Borup: So you are saying Accessory Use permits are not transferable –
McKinnon: To locations other than that indicated on the original application.
Borup: or they are not transferable without applying for a transfer.
Zaremba: I would leave this sentence as it is and add a sentence that they may be
transferred to another person if you apply to the Council.
McKinnon: They may be transferable to another person pursuant to Meridian City Code
11-17-10-B.
Zaremba: If you apply to City Council.
McKinnon: That would be that section of code.
Zaremba: That they may be, not that they will be. They may be transferable to that
section.
McKinnon: Lets pursue that a second more.
Zaremba: I would really rather leave the negative impression first. It’s not automatic.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, if I could try one attempt at
what you just said so that it would read transferability, colon, Accessory Use permits are
not transferable to locations other than that indicated on the original application.
Accessory Use permits may be transferred to other persons pursuant to Meridian City
Code 11-17-10-B, upon application to City Council. Mr. Nichols, do you think we should
make reference to that certain section of code?
Zaremba: There is a requirement to the transfer. There is a condition.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 49 of 62
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I think there are some better
wordsmithing that what we are coming up with on the fly here. It might be that we
simply say at the beginning, except for transfers permitted after application. Something
like that. Accessory Use permits are not transferable to any other person or location.
You put the exception out front, not at the end. The way you have the language worded
now, is pretty good. It’s not transferable either way.
Borup: Locations are not transferable either way, are they? It is just the person to
person.
Zaremba: Yes, except as provided in section whatever, they are not transferable.
Borup: Oh, just add that right in there. Accessory Use permits are not –
(Inaudible)
Nichols: Except as provided in Meridian City Code 11-17-10-B –
Zaremba: Then finish the sentence.
McKinnon: Thanks for working through that for me. Item Number 5 is another addition
that would be a fee waiver for disabled people. People who have disabilities, to allow
them to work at home and not require them to pay the fees. Just so that we can assist
them to become self-sufficient. We felt that would be appropriate. The issuance or
denial of permit, it provides some language for appeal and denial. That is item six and
seven. That goes through a long list of what they have to do in order to do that and
what are the grounds for denying the application or repealing the use. It gives the
specific reasons why the city could deny that. Whether it is a violation of the permitted
premises for the provisions of this chapter, whether its them having lied to us on the
application. They won’t allow the city to inspect. If I could draw your attention to Item
Number 8. Bill Nichols pointed this out and I agree with his corrections to this. The
applicant is not complying with the requirement or condition set forth by – strike
everything except for the or and in that place put in the City of Meridian. Rather than
being just the Planning and Zoning Commission or Planning and Zoning department in
case the City Council puts a condition on that, they are included in that.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, just say the City, because that is
being consistent with the rest of the language.
McKinnon: Thank you Mr. Nichols. If you could turn to Page 6. Essentially decided to
eliminate the existing home occupation standards. They are fairly vague in the opinion
of staff. We would like to have something more concrete. That is why we proposed the
new 11-9-5 on Page 7 for home occupations. It provides a purpose for home
occupations so we can explain to people why and what they are. Setting forth the
different types of permits that would be required such an endeavor. Items Number C,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 50 of 62
under the standards for approval of all home occupations. We have given a list that
details exactly what the requirements are, very specifically. It is essentially the things
we had in the code originally but we have embellished them to give more detail. D goes
down to qualifications. That deals with the childcare and home occupations and gives
the limit on the number children.
Mathes: I have a question. On 3-A, six years of age.
McKinnon: Three A under –
Mathes: D, qualifications. Should that be eight?
McKinnon: Three A, eight, you are correct.
(Inaudible)
McKinnon: I think you are right. You will note under three A, we excluded cooperative
babysitting, babysitting exchanges and the preschool exchanges. That is a question we
get quite a bit is whether or not a preschool exchange counts as daycare. We make that
very clear it does not and would not fall under this requirement. Then as we get to
Page 9, it talks about how if they can meet all the requirements as listed in D, and C,
then that is a home occupation that would require an Accessory Use permit. Under F,
we start talking about category two classifications. Those are those that don’t meet all
the qualifications listed above, under D and C, but that they would still like to hold a
conditional use permit and there some additional guidelines for those, listed out. They
go on to include the types of occupations such as dance classes. Home occupations for
repair work, including welding and carpentry. Sheet metal work, furniture making.
Swimming pool lessons. That type of use that produces more vehicle trips than would
be allowed in an Accessory Use permit, would require a conditional use permit. It would
require the full two Public Hearings and all the full radius notices. I don’t know if you
are aware but the Accessory Use permit, the radius noticing requirement that we have
in the City of Meridian is only those people immediately adjacent to are notified. That
includes those kitty-corner or across the street but that is it. We don’t have a 300 radius
on AUP’s. For a CUP, it would require the two hearings plus the 300-foot radius and
notification in the newspaper. We felt that the higher intensity uses should be put
through that higher amount of scrutiny. Then as we get down to Number 2 under that,
on Page 11, it talks about how we don’t want the category two home occupations to
proliferate in a neighborhood so we put space limitations between those.
Zaremba: On that line, you have the word sue instead of use.
McKinnon: Thank you. Use. Established in 300 feet and that they have to be in a
single family attached dwelling. Detached dwelling. Let me correct my own language
there. Detached dwelling could not be in a duplex or town home or apartment building.
Which category ones would be? You will see under that that they are required to have
a conditional use permit, which entails everything we have talked about. You can put
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 51 of 62
additional conditions on that. Then G below that basically states, here are the home
occupations that we don’t believe should ever be allowed and are specifically
prohibited. Those would include the commercial stables, mortuaries, animal hospitals,
clinics, antiques and crafts shows that produce a lot of people in a certain period of
time. Spray paint equipment where vehicles exceed twelve per hour and that’s instead
of just saying significance the ordinance has right now with significance traffic is it’s
actually spelled out for you, what would be a significant amount. It just continues on
Page 11 again, wow you don’t need to worry about that second Page 11. There is two
Page 11s they are identical. The bottom of Page 11 is the end of the new home
occupation guidelines. For us as staff it essentially clarifies the number of things that
we don’t have right now. Such as what is a significant amount of traffic? Right now our
ordinance says home occupations shall not generate a significant amount of traffic.
There is no threshold that we can say that’s two cars per hour three cars per hour. This
gives us an idea saying this is how many will be allowed per hour and there is some
very vigilant neighbors that will tell us when they call to complain that this is how many
times the UPS truck has stopped by. This is how many times a day we have dance girls
being dropped off and picked back up so it will give us an idea.
Zaremba: Twelve per hour is like one every five minutes. Right?
McKinnon: That’s a lot.
Zaremba: That’s a lot of cars.
McKinnon: See what happens is if you have half hour-long dance classes and there’s
an example of where we received a complaint on. Where they had a dance class every
half hour with six girls. If each girl arrives and leaves in the same vehicle that’s 24
vehicle trips. One coming in to drop off and leaving that’s two, so dropping off and
leaving is two vehicle trips coming back to pick up and leaving is an additional vehicle
trips you could have a generation from 12 girls 48 vehicle trips on a half hour basis. It
adds up rather rapidly. That’s why that would fall under a category two, which would be
no more than six children at a time or the number of vehicle trips if they arrive in a vans
but it would limit the number of vehicle trips per day. It would give us a specific
guideline for that and give an opportunity for those people other than immediate
neighbors to receive notification.
Zaremba: I agree with being specific, I wonder whether twelve is too generous. That’s
a lot.
McKinnon: It is. If you’d like to reduce that, that would be great.
Zaremba: I guess I’m the only one to ask that. Never mind.
Centers: I like on bottom of Page 11 you have kind of a catch all there. Any other
business that basically doesn’t fit, cause you can’t mention every business that is not
allowed and I saw a typo, but I’m not here to proofread. In fact I was going to ask that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 52 of 62
question at the outset. I hope I’m not here tonight to proofread because someone else
will be doing that, right?
McKinnon: In fact when we wrote this up, I usually write stuff up and hand it off to
Sonya and Sonya usually proofs and reads. You receive more scrutiny, but things like
sue that came in, and spell check doesn’t catch that.
Zaremba: It’s a legitimate word in spell check.
Shreeve: I think our attorney would agree, if the intent is there. That’s the main thing.
Zaremba: Let me just ask a question on organization. This is great work by the way.
McKinnon: Thanks.
Zaremba: I think that’s wonderful. The only thing I would wonder is if it might be easier
for applicants to understand this ordinance if it dealt with all home occupation subjects
in general first and then had a section that said in addition to above, childcare facilities
need this and then your last section was these are prohibited. As you read through it
you kind of bounce back and forth between all home occupations and then there is
something about childcare and then you go back to all home occupations and there is
something about childcare and it. I don’t know it needs a reorganization of the same
material but I think it would make it a little clearer to people that aren’t doing a childcare
don’t need to read all that stuff and sort it out. Once again that doesn’t appear to be an
issue for anybody but me.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I think it kind of does lay it out
that way in the overall scheme of the code. It’s just that David has picked the particular
things, like it starts out with definitions which of course is going to be first, includes child
care. Then we are going to skip down and go down through the stuff. I think if you look
at Title 11 Chapter 2 as a whole then I think we are okay.
Zaremba: Not a problem.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission and Mr. Nichols. In reading
through this and explaining this section to you. Just a thought that occurred to me and I
thought this was what you were going to bring up Commissioner Zaremba is on Page 9-
E where we talk about category one classifications are those that meet the
requirements listed above. Would it make more sense to say that category one meets
all of those requirements listed below? To move that to be above all the requirements.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
McKinnon: Would that make more sense?
Zaremba: It warns you about what’s coming.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 53 of 62
McKinnon: Saying this is class one and in order to be a class one you have to meet all
these. Rather then saying here’s all the requirements and oh by the way if you meet all
those you are a class one.
Zaremba: I like your change you are proposing. Last one is as follows.
McKinnon: So I guess it would be just stating rather then qualifications as D put D
category one classifications. Right.
Zaremba: It looks like two and three are in that order.
McKinnon: That’s exactly it. What I was thinking. Category one says everything above
and then category two says hey here’s everything down below.
Zaremba: And three as it all below.
McKinnon: And three is all below so should we switch D and E? Would that be
something that you would all be agreeable to? Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Yes.
McKinnon: Do you have any comments concerning that?
Nichols: It makes it more consistent.
McKinnon: Are you in agreement with that?
Nichols: Yes except you are going to have to change your reference in.
McKinnon: It would be 11 9 5 D, I mean 11 9 5 E.
Nichols: Right.
McKinnon: Okay. I think that will help out a little bit. Do you have any –
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Also on that where it talks about
category one classification. The end of that sentence I would say, strike pursuant to
MCC. Simply put a period after the word permit there.
McKinnon: You guys have had a little bit of time to look this over, do you have any
comments, anything you would like to see different? Anything you would like to add to
it? I know there is a lot of information in there.
Borup: I think you did a great job on it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 54 of 62
Zaremba: Are we ready for a motion other than the typos.
McKinnon: I believe Mr. Nichols had a few other items he would like to bring up.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman, members. The only thing that I have that David did not discuss
or Commissioner Zaremba didn’t catch. It’s on Page 4 under sub Paragraph 4 it
references that or development code and I think you just strike that all together.
Because that development code is not specified or defined and the Meridian City Code
reference ahead of that covers all of that.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend to the City Council adoption of
these revisions to the Child Care, home occupations ordinance as amended in our
discussion.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion second all in favor. Any opposed? Are we done for the evening?
Zaremba: I have a fugitive dust patrol ordinance.
Borup: That’s actually the only one that we haven’t hit isn’t it?
McKinnon: Well we had some definitions and some scheduled use control but we can
hold off on those. Let me give you guys an update really quick on the fugitive dust
ordinance.
Borup: That’s what I hope maybe just that and then we maybe discuss that. We might
be able to hit some of these at our second meeting in the month, if were not.
Shreeve: Let me ask you on the definitions, do we really need to be involved in that?
Zaremba: Well I have a comment on those if we are going to address those.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. If I could just really quick
address the dust ordinance because it doesn’t look like that is something that you guys
will have to spend much time with if anytime with at all. That’s something the City
Council has seen at this time and it may not be something that will be placed in the
section of code as you deal with. The enforcement may be placed in the public works
side of things and the police department side of things which means you would not be
required to make a motion on that to recommend those to council. I have met with
members of COMPASS I’ve sent out a new copy that you don’t have yet because I
didn’t want to have to over burden you with things that don’t concern you. COMPASS is
taking a look at it there in favor of what we are doing. The Police Department is
agreeable to some of the additions that we’ve made to that for enforcement. There is
still going to be some discussions on who is going to be responsible for enforcing that
and it may come back to you and we may end up putting it back in our ordinance book
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 55 of 62
but we are going along with that. The community planning association, which is the
association that is responsible for the regional transportation and the money for the
highways, which is, why we are adopting this. Is because air quality is tied to highway
dollars. They’ve taken a look at it and they think what we’ve got is a great start. They
are behind us and would like to see us do something in a short period of time. We do
have those changes I know that Mr. Nichols has seen that so I think we are well on our
way there. Unless you hear from us, otherwise it’s really not something that you need
to concern yourself with.
Zaremba: So are you saying that for the city or for instances the redevelopment district
that we talked about earlier to receive federal funds. We should have something like
this in writing in our ordinances.
McKinnon: That’s tied to the federal highway dollars and if our air quality, the air shed
in the valley is at a lower level than what the federal government says it should be.
They say until you get it to the place it should be we are going to hold back the money
from you.
Zaremba: So having an ordinance or not isn’t really the issue.
McKinnon: Having an ordinance or not is not specifically the issue but one of the
requirements. Well it goes a lot deeper than that, I’ve given you a real nutshell version
of that, but there was a lawsuit that was tied to this COMPASS volunteered to be part of
the lawsuit. Part of the way the lawsuit was resolved was that there was certain things
everybody agreed to do. One of those things was that COMPASS would work towards
getting this type of ordinance adopted in the area and so that’s the reason why were
sitting in front of this right now is so that in order to keep the money coming, so
something we agreed to do. That’s still very much a nutshell it doesn’t cover quite in
depth.
Borup: Are there going to be more defining the definitions or anything? The only
question I had and I think it’s these things are fairly general but Number 3 on Page 4
over the top it says clearing a grade of land does that mean. I mean someone that
wants to clear their garden spot or level it out is that included or you know where do we
have a size?
McKinnon: You don’t have the most recent copy but one of the things that it’s tied to it
says that uses that are accepted from that and one of those is individual landscaping on
an individual homeowners lots.
Borup: So how about for a contractor on a building contract on an individual lot, where
he rakes it out so it’s ready to plant grass.
McKinnon: That’s going to be one of those ones that would be exempted from that.
However if you came in and said we are going to do the sewer line for the entire project
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 56 of 62
we will level the entire project out, you better have some sort of dust – to keep the dust
down.
Borup: An individual lot is accepted.
McKinnon: Individual lots are accepted for that. You don’t have the final copy and
addition to the stuff you have in front of you we added some language for track out
control measures as to how those can be maintained putting in a series of bars or rails
at the exiting location. Or putting down a wash down pad where the spray water from
under the undercarriage from those. It’s not something we’ve required but its one of the
things that we said is an option for you to use in order to minimize this and that the city
may require it on larger lots, larger subdivisions. Something like the Lochsa or Bear
Creek. Say you are going to be doing it you have to provide it for these types of
projects there’s no way of doing it otherwise.
Borup: This doesn’t show it in exceptions now.
McKinnon: You don’t have the most current copy, you also don’t have the current copy
of the language that deals with covered loads and making sure that those people that
are driving off with a truck full of gravel that they covered it.
Borup: Doesn’t ACHD already have that?
McKinnon: ACHD has some language concerning that. I’ll tell you what I sit in my
office all day long and I can see them driving their gravel trucks right passed the Police
Department every single day and do work in that subdivision in the police department
and there is gravel all over that road.
Shreeve: Tracking of the mud onto the public highways is a big mess.
McKinnon: The ordinance you have also has agriculture exempted from that and no
longer in the ordinance that we’ve got would agricultural uses be exempted from track
out.
Borup: It shouldn’t.
McKinnon: It shouldn’t be and it’s no longer included as something that is exempted
from that. I agree --.
Borup: (inaudible) dust.
McKinnon: As far as disking of field there’s not a whole lot we can do to enforce that,
but tracking the mud out on the highway. Is something we can definitely take care of?
Shreeve: Did you include other particles, well manure? That type of thing on the
highway? I have seen it and it is terrible.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 57 of 62
McKinnon: The definition that I’ve added to the ordinance is one that COMPASS
handed to us and here’s what we are defining it as and I embellished it to go much
further then what they had. Theirs had to deal with dirt, rock, sand, gravel, mud and I
think we added organic material, which would include manure. Organic material and we
also added that they can’t track it out onto any improved right of way. That would
include sidewalks when the agricultural uses are adjacent to sidewalks go out so we got
it covered. The definitions are like eight lines long. They are long definitions.
Zaremba: The military has a term that just calls it foreign object debris. FOD and
doesn’t actually try and list everything it could possibly be foreign object debris. It may
be a useful term.
Nichols: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. If you want to kind of get a short
thumbnail of why we have to do this. Get a copy of the City Council workshop minutes
from earlier this month and Mr. Bowman from COMPASS made a presentation to the
Council with the regard of dust abatement and gives you a nice thumbnail sketch of why
we’re having to do this in Ada County. Why Canyon County although not part of the
lawsuit is looking at implementing emissions testing and dust abatement and those
sorts of things, its tied into particular air quality standards and if you ever here them talk
about PM 10 its particulate matter of ten microns or less in size that’s what they are
talking about. That is a particular standard that has to be cleaned up and they also
identified where that comes from and how much from agricultural and how much is
coming off the roads and how much is coming from open burning and so forth. Its been
pretty well documented where it comes from and what needs to be done to clean it up.
McKinnon: And if you have got more information I have the 1999 Emissions Index that
says where it’s all from and it’s about 19 pages long and its rather dry but we got a lot of
information on that.
Shreeve: So the copy we have here is history?
McKinnon: It’s history. Feel free to recycle that.
Zaremba: So you are saying if we need to deal with it we will get a new one.
McKinnon: Yeah, that’s correct. I don’t know if you want to address the definitions
tonight of scheduled use control. The definitions that we provided for you to take a look
at we felt were necessary because we have all of these items listed under the
scheduled use control. We don’t have any of them defined. None of these definitions
currently exist in the city code. Rather than say what is a bar we said this is, what a bar
is so there’s no misunderstanding. It’s the same with broadcasting and bus and rail
station what a church is. No special consideration to you is what a school is after you
went through them is it a school or is it an educational program debate. We’ve added
those types of definitions to this there’s going to be more definitions that are going to
need to be included. We felt that three pages or four pages of definitions would be a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 58 of 62
really good starting off point for you to have in front of you to decide whether you
wanted to add those to the ordinance at this time or wait till we have an entirely
comprehensive list.
Zaremba: I like what you have presented. It misses the one thing that’s my special
bugaboo and that I brought up in relation to the Utility Subdivision.
McKinnon: Industrial.
Zaremba: In the definition there should be a definition for industrial and on the chart
there should be a column for light industrial.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba. I agree completely, I don’t believe
the definition for industrial however should be included in 112-2 that’s where these
definitions are all found. I believe if we are going to have an industrial zone it should be
one that’s listed under the industrial zone just like we have old town defined as part of
the old town definition. There is a separate definition for the zoning designations.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: You are talking about uses here?
McKinnon: We are talking about uses. That is correct. I know Commissioner Zaremba
you asked that we have that information for you. We have spent a lot of time looking at
other industrial ordinances saying what do we want. Do we want this to be industrial or
do we want this to be a manufacturing zone. There are a lot of cities that use an M
zone and they use an I zone. We have an I-L zone, actually we have an I zone but we
have a specific zoning of I-L but no specific industrial zone.
Zaremba: That’s the issue I’m trying to resolve. I think we should have both zones.
McKinnon: Right.
Zaremba: I-N or I-L I don’t care, it could be an M but they should be in both places both
in the definitions in the one chapter and on the chart in the other chapter.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba. Just to let you know we have been
working on that. The Comprehensive Plan that we have adopted doesn’t specifically
state whether the uses in these land areas should be industrial or light industrial and we
felt that we need to have something in place in order, not necessarily here but
something in place in our codebook. We have been working on it finding a specific
definition that we all enjoy and all like has been something of a burden. These that you
have in front of you are all fairly simple, very dry definitions. They don’t involve a great
deal of debate. Nobody is going to say this is not a retail store when somebody says a
retail store is a store that sells goods or commodities. As to what industrial is we need
a, we don’t want to put it in this definition. We felt this should be handled separately
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 59 of 62
from the whole zoning issue. We’ll get that to you its forth coming. We don’t have
something we are ready to present to you yet.
Centers: I would like to see you move forward with the definitions without a doubt. I
think where we get into the long discussions is where these definitions fit in the zoning
districts.
McKinnon: That’s correct.
Centers: That’s where I think we need to spend our time. (Inaudible) exactly where
you put a C an A or whatever. Your definitions I think are fine and I think we should
move forward with those and I would so move.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Any discussion? All in favor?
McKinnon: Thank you Mr. Chairman members of the Commission. You guys have
done an awful lot tonight and we appreciate it.
Borup: Let’s take a look at some of our second meetings of the month and see if we
maybe can get the use control at one of those meetings.
Centers: Second meeting of when.
Borup: Of September if we don’t continue anything.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We are going to have two
items from the first meeting in September being requested to be moved to the second
meeting in September right now.
Borup: So that may not be the meeting date.
McKinnon: One of the items that we received request for continuance to that meeting is
the Caven Property, that’s the miscellaneous application --
***End of Side Four***
McKinnon: -- approved the Conditional Use Permit for that plat but the plat does have a
few issues that I know you’ll want to spend some time with. Just so you know there has
been two requested items that have been moved.
Borup: Well we don’t have to move it to that second meeting.
McKinnon: No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 60 of 62
Borup: I guess we’ll see how we feel that night. It can be continued to the following
month.
Zaremba: I was going to say, can we put it on the agenda and if we get done early we’ll
do that.
Centers: We can go through if we get done with two pages then continue and start with
the next three.
Borup: If its Bridgetower that’s going, I don’t know have they worked things out with
staff yet?
McKinnon: It’s pretty big. They worked out a lot of issues with us right now.
Borup: I mean I don’t well. I don’t know if this Commission needs to sit as a referee
between staff and the applicant. Unless staff is being unreasonable.
Zaremba: Do you want to steer us in some things you want us to ask them or be
pointed about.
McKinnon: No I wouldn’t go that direction at all. I’m starting to think this through, in the
meetings in October. You will have a number of items in October at least.
Borup: There is some first hearings on our second meeting in October.
Zaremba: I saw that.
McKinnon: -- and you have a lot of them not just a couple.
Borup: But they were fairly.
McKinnon: Fairly small in size.
Borup: Shari called me about that and I said yeah lets get it on rather then keep
moving it further out.
McKinnon: I believe you will have seven new items on the second meeting in October
at this point.
Borup: But there were no big subdivision applications or big commercial projects or
anything like that.
McKinnon: Nope September might be the best way to go because October is loaded
up. Whatever you decide let me know if you could and I could provide some additional
information for you and possibly have that industrial language for Commissioner
Zaremba.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 61 of 62
Zaremba: Thank you. I move that discussion of further ordinances the agenda for our
September 19th
meeting.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: All in favor? I don’t know if we need a strict motion on that anyway. I think
that’s what we would like to do. Look at things at the time.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we thank Dave McKinnon for all the work that he’s put in on all this
stuff. It certainly shows a lot of good thought and a lot of good research and I
appreciate it for one.
McKinnon: Thanks.
Borup: Yes, good job Dave. Unless we have anything else.
Shreeve: So I don’t take the time at the public meeting with Commissioner Centers. I’d
like to think the opportunity and your patience and education even from staff. I’ve really
enjoyed serving this capacity and wish you best of luck in the future. If there is anything
I can do.
(Tape error – inaudible)
Shreeve: You want me to plan on the second meeting in September to follow through
with any continuous to keep some continuity for the month. Or.
Borup: Oh, at this point anything we have continued would not have a Public Hearing
anyway correct?
Shreeve: It sounds like you have two big ones already that are asking to go to the
second meeting.
Borup: Cause they aren’t prepared to make their presentation at the first meeting. Is
that?
McKinnon: They won’t be able to make their presentation at the first meeting in
September.
Borup: That’s what I was saying if they aren’t ready I don’t know if we need to move it
to the second meeting.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 29, 2002
Page 62 of 62
Zaremba: You remember Commissioner Centers will miss both meetings.
Borup: I mean if it’s a big development, if it’s a referee you ought to get Jerry in there.
(Inaudible discussion)
Borup: Okay to answer your question, I’m anticipating just the first meeting. If the
mayor gets it turned in. That might not happen as quick as we think it might. We will let
you know then if that’s all right.
Shreeve: Sounds good, see you next week. I just didn’t want to make a speech in real
public so this is my speech.
Zaremba: That is a reminder that the next meeting is not two weeks away it is next
week. Do we need a motion to adjourn? So moved.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you everyone.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:48 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK